Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KeunGoGae Station
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- KeunGoGae Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet notability requirements. No reliable and independent sources to be found. Bejinhan talks 06:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Keungogae Station and redirect to Daegu Subway Line 1 unless suitable sources can be found to support a separate article. --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Metro station in city of over 2 and a half million. Per long-standing convention, such stations are considered inherently notable. It's absolutely impossible for such a major project to be planned, built and completed without extensive government proposals, surveys and reports. Also, nominating an article for AfD within one hour of its creation only serves to discourage new editors. This is becoming a very serious issue and this is an example of what is contributing to it. --Oakshade (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. The city is notable, yes, but not necessarily the station. This AfD certainly hasn't stopped the article creator from editing and creating more station articles. Bejinhan talks 02:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That essay is nice, but in fact Wikipedia editors have long considered many kinds of topics like this as inherently notable such as population centers, heads of states, etc..--Oakshade (talk) 05:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oakshade, Please provide a link to the consensus or to the the guideline that mentions this precedent for stations. Please note also that a perceived loss of contributors is not a relevant rationale to use at AfD. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Rail_transport. The issue of loss of contributors and more importantly discouragement of new ones due to what Jimmy Wales in-effect description of WP:CREEP is very front-and-center and should be identified when it's occurring. In this case, the new user should've been assisted, not have their work immediately thrown up for deletion.--Oakshade (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oakshade, Please provide a link to the consensus or to the the guideline that mentions this precedent for stations. Please note also that a perceived loss of contributors is not a relevant rationale to use at AfD. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That essay is nice, but in fact Wikipedia editors have long considered many kinds of topics like this as inherently notable such as population centers, heads of states, etc..--Oakshade (talk) 05:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. The city is notable, yes, but not necessarily the station. This AfD certainly hasn't stopped the article creator from editing and creating more station articles. Bejinhan talks 02:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG. googling finds nothing in the way of real coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You won't find much by Googling considering this is a foreign language item and is unlikely to have any web sources writing about it in English. One cannot simply apply a Google test for subjects such as these. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 08:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Rail_transport. It is a metro station on a major line. It should, and no doubt, will be expanded. Note that there is a fair bit more information in the Korean and Japanese wikis. Francis Bond (talk) 09:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It is part of a series. See Category:Daegu subway line stations. Biscuittin (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Stations are generally considered to be notable. The nominator is basing his opinion on a mere essay with no "authority" on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.