Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gōtsu Honmachi Station

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 keep. The consensus is to quickly keeping all for now; individual stations may be redirected by discretion Alex Shih ^Talk 06:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gōtsu Honmachi Station[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an omnibus deletion. The following articles are also being listed for deletion:

All of the above are stations on the soon-to-be-closed Sankō Line, connecting the towns of Miyoshi and Gotsu. Whereas the termini stations are notable owing to their connections and affiliated sources, the stations inbetween are not. Most consist of a simple infobox, an image and a rather tautological sentence detailing nothing more than where in Japan it is. Most of these have not been kept up to date (except by the housekeeping bots), and none of them reference the line's impending closure.

TL:DR - None of these articles meet WP:GNGs. GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 00:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If they're all unique names can't they just be redirected to Sanko Line? ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sankō Line. Just being out of date is not in itself a viable reason for deletion, and it would be more beneficial to tag such articles with the {{update}} template instead. If any of the articles in the list do actually fail the WP:GNG criteria, they should be redirected to the parent Sankō Line article, as they will continue to be feasible search terms. --DAJF (talk) 07:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We generally keep all railway stations, open or closed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, Wikipedia isn't a travel guide, we don't generally delete articles of notable places that have closed. We generally consider railway stations to be notable whether or not they are still currently in use. In any case the railway line isn't due to close till next year, so why the unholy rush?! Sionk (talk) 10:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - notability is not temporary. Mjroots (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all: pardon the pun, but this AfD is probably a trainwreck. Some of the stations meet both general notability guidelines and building notability guidelines. While the GNG does supersede specific notability guidelines (except academics for some reason), the AfD precedent is that train stations are generally notable. None of the articles are poorly sourced and all seem to warrant their own article. DrStrauss talk 09:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Yes, every single one of them is notable. Although usage of rural railways in Japan is declining, it was previously used by many passengers for decades. The stations served as an important part in the life of the local community. Wikipedia being an encyclopaedia and a repository of historical knowledge should keep these information for posterity. The railway line itself seems to be very notable based on the amount of coverage I can find. Based on this, I can assume the stations would have coverage, perhaps in Japanese. Please do not delete this.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2017 (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.