Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quezon Avenue MRT 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. Krimpet (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quezon Avenue MRT Station[edit]

Can't find a thing on the article's subject from any reliable source, let alone coverage by multiple non-trivial independent reliable sources. The article's author is on record on the talk page stating that the article is written from personal experience, and that reliable sources do not exist. From anything I can find, I have to agree with him. The subject is thus unverifiable, non-notable, and impossible to write about without the use of original research. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I really want to say transwiki here, but what you can transwiki this to is sitting on a rackmount server that is soon to be heading to Oakland, California via FedEx Ground. Is there some way to archive this stuff pending deletion, or will I just want to userfy it to my own user space? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well...there's always userfication to one's hard drive, too. Although generally if you want to transwiki something that's been deleted, you can ask to have it temporarily history-restored and userfied while you do that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am but one user who wrote that article. I may have wrote my share of the article possibly using some OR, but it does not mean that everyone else did. Does notability solely have to hinge on it having references (by the way, I inserted a reference on an incident at the said station)? --Sky Harbor 07:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can give a source (magazine) for this and all of the MRT and LRT articles. --Howard the Duck 07:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't understand the notability of this station. Sure the system is notable, even the line probably can meet notability guidelines, but I am unconvinced that the station does. The ref just added to the article doesn't provide any information on the station itself at all, but just mentions it as placemark for the extent of an incident. "The incident stalled the southbound train between the Quezon Avenue and GMA-Kamuning stations . . ."
Weak keep. A system map will show the station. [1] shows some reliable sources for its existence. If there were public planning studies, those can be used to fill in information; I'm not sure how this works in the Philippines. If nothing more can be added than what is already here, it is probably better merged into Quezon City or a new Quezon Avenue article. I myself am on the fence regarding individual rapid transit stations. Normally an underground one on an older system will have enough information, as I discovered when I tested this on the Grand Army Plaza station in New York City. On a newer elevated system with every station almost identical, it may not be possible to do this. --NE2 19:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also agree the system is notable, but I fail to see how the station is notable. BeckyAnne (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. While this is a new station and not much about it is available as secondary sources, the train line is notable and the intersection it serves is also notable. Ultimately, this is better merged with a well-developed article on Quezon Avenue, an important trunk line in Metro Manila. Until then, I say keep. --Polaron | Talk 20:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a major metro station in a major city. This is where systemic bias really comes in; it's just not feasible to say "give me a source right this second" when the sources (of which, we know from dealing with similar cases, near-universally exist) are in the Phillippines, and to assert that because such a source isn't immediately forthcoming you can make any judgement about its notability is simply nonsense. Rebecca 02:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rebecca. Major station in major city. --Oakshade 04:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rebecca. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Sky Harbor 14:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the keeps are piling. I have nothing new to add. —Gaff ^ταλκ 03:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional - If Quezon Avenue MRT Station should be deleted then delete all other light rail stations like the Choa Chu Kang MRT/LRT Station of the Bukit Panjang Light Rapid Transit in Singapore otherwise keep. I think that is fair enough. - Jojit fb 05:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What about metro stations? --Sky Harbor 06:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those conditions should apply in metro stations as well. Actually, what I said is viewed by some Wikipedians as one of the arguments to avoid in a deletion debates. Nevertheless, what I'm after is consistency. Wikipedia is not only an encyclopedia but also a community. If we (the community) disallowed a specific article then we should also disallow other articles with similar nature. Also, the one who proposed for Quezon Avenue MRT Station's deletion should have opted with other alternatives and consulted the Philippine notice board if the said article is notable or not. - Jojit fb 02:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rebecca. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 08:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Metro stations in general are a notable landmark in every city. The inclusion of a news article about an incident further strengthens its notability.--Kylohk 12:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems this article has potential for improvement, especially once Phillipine sources are found and used. In any case, I believe any such station is sufficiently notable infrastructure for Wikipedia. - Axver 13:26, 6 June 2007 (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.