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 (there is support for merging/redirecting separately from the AFD). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-31 06:31Z

Singil Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Per precedent on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeouinaru Station, nominating all other station stops on Seoul Subway Line 5. Most are the same as Yeouinaru Station: 1 line with no other content (including pictures, while free, I also think do not provide value). Only two of these articles have anything beyond one line: Gimpo Airport Station and Omokgyo Station, of which only 1 introduces a source, but the source doesn't mention the subway station at all. I further think all these should be turned into redirects, any content included on Seoul Subway Line 5 (including images) and the table de-wikilinked. MECU≈talk 17:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]

• Wangsimni Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dongdaemun Stadium Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Euljiro 4-ga Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jongno 3-ga Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Gwanghwamun Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Seodaemun Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Aeogae Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Yeouido Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Omokgyo Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Gimpo Airport Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--MECU≈talk 17:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I was tempted to speedy close this myself, as the nominator didn't want the articles to be deleted. However, I want to get a feel for what others are thinking here first. Speedy close as the nominator wants to redirect all of these and not delete. Failing that, Merge and/or redirect all of these to Seoul Subway Line 5. JYolkowski // talk 19:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect all - we don't need separate articles on each station (not even enough information available except a single sentence). Jayden54 20:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Of equal importance to stations in London and New York. Redirection would therefore be racist. Nathanian 20:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I randomly found my way to 5 (New York City Subway service) which I would equate to an equal level as Seoul Subway Line 5, and looked at the station articles there. Of the random 5 I looked at, they included a link or two and most had more significant text than "This is a station on line X." There were some claims such as "will be rebuilt" and other items that should be sourced/referenced, which may be covered by the external link(s) on the articles. I don't think "racist" is a valuable label to be applied here. Regardless, I believe the most damaging argument for this is that even the Korean Wikipedia articles are small (as reported in the previous AFD mentioned above), which isn't what one would expect if these are of significant more value than an English language version. I listed them as AFDs because they are articles, someone has spent time in creating them with the templates/infoboxes, and I didn't know where else to list them, though perhaps I could have just said they should be deleted as the previous AFD I requested all related articles (ie, these mentioned above) to be included (but didn't list them, so perhaps some people didn't vote with that in mind or for due process matters, it makes sense to give each of these their own representation). --MECU≈talk 20:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, got to go with the eventualist position on subway stations. I read something about "reversing bad precedents" - making subway station articles open to a higher level of scrutiny is not a good idea. These particular articles contain templates and infoboxes which add decent context, particularly hangeul translations and surrounding stations (I was involved in that respect). If this is the way things are going, the battle against station articles could get bloody. Deizio talk 21:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect – While I doubt that MCT 2000 and McCune-Reischauer romanisations of stations' Korean names add much value to their articles (as opposed to the more useful set of hangul, English and hanja names in actual use for each station), I fail to see what prevents us from including such content on Seoul Subway Line 5, List of stations on the Seoul Subway Line 5, or perhaps even List of rapid transit stations in Seoul. Wikipeditor 22:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Whilst we keep London / NYC / Tokyo subway stations. Akihabara 23:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:AFDP. Discussion of inherent station inslusion is at User:Mangoe/Wikipedia is not a timetable, but untill policy is set we'll go by precendent that all stations are included. --Oakshade 23:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mangoe later wrote a more refined version of station inclusion guidelines after the extensive discussion on User talk:Mangoe/Wikipedia is not a timetable. The revised guideline, which drew a much wider consensus than the original, can be found at User:Mangoe/Railroad line and station articles. —CComMack (t–c) 14:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to which page are we going to redirect when the station is a transfer point between multiple lines? Dongdaemun Stadium Station, for example, is a station on three lines. Slambo (Speak) 11:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit Corporation --MECU≈talk 13:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep we have articles about every damn train station in far less notable cities than seoul. eg most of the australian capital cities (i use this example simply because i'm australian). as for 1/2 lines, 'stub' is not a reason for deleting an article.  ⇒ bsnowball  14:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all useful content. Can grow. Fg2 00:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect all per Wikipeditor; why is this on AfD? -- Visviva 01:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep railway stations, regardless of a bad precedent that was controversial in the first place (8-4 against deletion, although acknowledge AFD is not a vote) Neier 09:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all redirecting to Seoul Subway Line 5 is not appropriate for all the stations because some of the stations serve other lines, some articles actually have substantive content, and Wikipedia precedent favors keeping subway stations.-- danntm ^T _C 16:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all like others votes. 17.255.252.6 01:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as nominator does not desire deletion, these should be discussed as merge proposals. Seraphimblade 10:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all A word is done as a former author. It doesn't know the reason to do the deletion at all. It is necessary to delete all articles on the subway station besides the deletion by any chance. (Sorry, but I'm English level is very basic level) -- JongGuk 14:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above, Yeouinaru Station was deleted for lack of sources, not lack of notability or violation of precedent, and one deletion is not a precedent. Yeouinaru Station should have (and I suggested that it should be) been reposted with proper sources. Part of the problem here is sourcing information that's mostly in the Korean language, deleting station articles solely based on lack of English and Latin character set references in a country that doesn't speak English natively nor normally uses Latin characters in its language is a symptom of systemic bias. Also, throwing difficult to source articles up for AfD is not a proper way to influence guidelines and de facto policy on subway stations, there's forums for discussing policies and guidelines. JMHO ;-) Tubezone 00:48, 31 December 2006 (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.