Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeouinaru 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 delete Here's a more important precedent, no reliable sources means no article... notice how no one's able to expand this beyond a 1-sentence substub... wonder why? Provide sources and I will undelete. A redirect to somewhere relevent would be fine and harmless. W.marsh 23:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yeouinaru Station

Yeouinaru Station (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A station on a subway in Korea that doesn't appear to have had anything happen at it. Not notable. The list of the stations on the Seoul Subway Line 5 page is sufficient and they should be unlinked and those with articles there should be deleted as well. MECU≈talk 16:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep articles about rail stations Fg2 02:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep railway stations have long been considered notable places on Wikipedia, even dull, poorly served ones where nothing happens as they are major geographical features, and these articles are kept as a matter of course. This is unlike the schools debate or similar reasonably evenly split issues. SM247^{My Talk} 04:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep as above. Neier 12:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a subway guide. As for notability, I wouldn't expect there to be non-trivial sources about a subway station that we could use to write a non-directory Wikipedia entry, but, sigh, OK, methinkst, let's give this one the benefit of the doubt, and I checked Google (and, feeling incredibly silly, even Lexis-Nexis). Non-trivial results? None. (What a surprise!) As for precedent: Wikipedia isn't the United States Supreme Court, the Wikipedia practice of keeping "articles" about railway/subway/bus stations ain't Roe v. Wade, and I sure as heck am not Tony Kennedy. If no one here is either, now's as good a time as any to start reversing bad precedent. (Yes, it can be done, see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_28/Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America) Pan Dan 16:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more about bad precedent on this. Was a bad idea from the first, & WP should have grown up by now.DGG 03:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a transit guide. Have multiple separate people, independent of the subject, written and published works of their own about this transit station, demonstrating that they find the subject notable enough that they have gone to the effort of creating and publishing works of their own about it? Nope. Then no notability here. Denni ^talk 20:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:AFDP, subway stations are notable. There are thousands of station articles and there is no reason to single this one out for deletion to go against precendent, or to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Oakshade 01:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I take offense that you claim I am trying to make a point. You have failed to assume good faith. --MECU≈talk 03:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "There are thousands of station articles and there is no reason to single this one out for deletion" -- That's no argument to keep. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, while less worthy ones stay. We consider each article individually as it comes up for discussion, because it's impossible to consider thousands at a time. "There is no reason ... to go against precedent" -- Citing the outcomes of past AfD's as "precedent" is not a reason for keeping or deleting anything. If you would like to cite arguments that have been made in past AfD's, please do so. Here at this AfD, outcomes of prior discussions are neither binding nor convincing. Pan Dan 02:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    • You've still cited no reason to go against precendent, just that you don't feel restricted by precedent. As you metion that hundreds of articles are deleted every day, never has a station been deleted. That's what Wikipedia calls precendent. If you want to discuss the merits of station inclusion, there is a current ernest discussion at User talk:Mangoe/Wikipedia is not a timetable about the standards of station inclusion, and even if there should by any standards. That is where this argument should be heading, not on a single random station in Korea. Until there is a policy change, there's no reason to against precedent (or for WP:DISRUPT) as no official WP outcome of that discussion has been reached. --Oakshade 23:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
      • (1) Just because there's an ongoing general discussion about what to do about station inclusion/exclusion, that's no reason we can't continue to consider individual articles. (For example articles on schools are deleted sometimes these days, even as discussion continues at WP:SCHOOL and WP:SCHOOL3.) At this AFD, please address this article and its subject. (2) You say I "don't feel restricted by precedent." This is a strange thing to say, given that Wikipedia has no policy or even guideline on the need to follow precedent. At the very top of WP:AFDP, which you linked to, it says in bold, "This page is not policy." (3) Per what I just said, your argument to keep the article because of precedent is not grounded in policy. For this reason I urge you again to consider the merits of this article and its subject, and make an argument based on how our policies and guidelines apply to this article. (Hey, when you do that you might even come to a conclusion the article should be deleted!) (4) Every delete argument here, by contrast, is based on policy (viz. WP:NOT, and WP:N which is a guideline based on the policies of WP:V and WP:NOT), so I have a hard time seeing how you can allege a violation of WP:DISRUPT. Again, WP:AFDP is not policy. Pan Dan 02:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Agreed about policy. But until actual policy is set for train/subway stations (it currently isn't), we go by precendent. If you choose otherwise, you are free to. --Oakshade 02:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
          • You miss the point that existing policy already applies to this article, for example WP:NOT a directory or WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Unless somebody can say why this article has the potential to become more than a stub via sources as WP:N requires, then WP:NOT suggests deletion. A separate guideline for rail stations is not needed -- note that several articles on schools have been deleted recently, even as the discussion at WP:SCHOOL/3 remains unresolved. Pan Dan 03:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
            • As stations have never been deleted, precedent shows Wikipedia:Consensus think they are notable. And until specific policy relating to stations is set, we'll go by precedent. I'm tired of discussing this and repeating the same point. You'll probably have the last diatribe. Goodnight. --Oakshade 03:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
              • No, I'll let yours be the last diatribe.  :-) Pan Dan 03:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
                • Darn it, you changed your comment after I made my graceful and magnanimous exit... foiled again! :-) . Oh well. Anyway, just to respond to your changing of your last comment, which was to cite Wikipedia:Consensus: clearly, as this AFD shows, there is no consensus as to automatically including articles about rail stations. Pan Dan 03:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
                  • Comment At least at one time keeping all rail and subway stations was consensus, otherwise there wouldn't be policy that they all be kept. As it is, I think the best way to deal with this, due to the number of possible deletions involved, is to settle the issues of subway and train station notability by policy discussion (as they did with road naming conventions) so a single clear standard can be applied to the stations' retention or deletion. Trying to solve the issue of station notability, which involves thousands of articles, by nominating stations one by one, or even in groups, would be excessively lengthy to say the least and excruciating to wade through and difficult to comment or vote on by interested parties. It'd also be a bloody mess. Tubezone 09:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
                    • (1) "[There is] policy that [articles about rail stations] all be kept." -- Pardon, what policy are you talking about? WP:AFDP says explicitly, in bold, at the very top, that it is not policy. (2) As to your the rest of your comment about "trying to solve the issue of station notability" -- No one here has proposed doing that via AfD as you imply. Oakshade has pointed out that there is a general discussion on station notability at User talk:Mangoe/Wikipedia is not a timetable. But this AfD is about this station. As I said to Oakshade, even as discussion continues at WP:SCHOOL/3, school articles are nominated every day; some get deleted, some kept. The nominator and others here have raised perfectly valid concerns about this article, and I wish you and others would address those concerns instead of appealing to precedent, which is neither binding per WP:AFDP, nor convincing. Pan Dan 13:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• 'Speedy keep Train and subway stations are automatic inclusions, per WP:AFDP, at least at this point. Tubezone 09:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • To put what I said above in different words: WP:AFDP is descriptive, not prescriptive. I.e. it describes what has happened in past AFD's, without saying what should happen in future AFD's. Note "This is not policy" in bold at the very top of that page. So to say that "stations are automatic inclusions per WP:AFDP" is simply false. Please address the concerns the nominator and others have about this article, because at this AFD, precedent is neither binding nor convincing. Pan Dan 13:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment To you precedent is neither binding nor convincing, but your arguments seem to be more about breaking precedent, not about this station... I presume you can't read Korean any better than I , how would you or I know whether it's notable or not? It looks like this station nom was pulled out of a hat, not by any familiarity with Seoul that would lead someone to believe this is a trival station not worth mentioning, fact is, I haven't seen any discussion in this AfD about the station or its neighborhood, or what might or might not make it notable. You say the precedent isn't policy, I say it's de facto policy, and likely there for a reason, and by general consensus, for the same reason all towns and state highways are automatic keepers whether they're sensibly notable or not: It avoids endless and innumerable AfD debates (and there's way too many AfD's, over 100 per day) over the notability of highways and towns. I'd like to see similarly clearcut policies on lists and schools, too, there's way too much time spent debating AfD's on them. The nominator's user page makes this comment: "I think policies should be clearly worded so that anyone reading them should be able to understand the policy and be able to apply it." Amen. Tubezone 06:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Reply (1) "your arguments seem to be more about breaking precedent, not about this station" -- Not so. Please read my delete comment above. I looked in Google and Lexis-Nexis and found no non-trivial sources (and was not surprised by this -- why should there be non-trivial sources about a subway station?). My argument to delete is based on WP:N, which is a guideline based on the policies of WP:V and WP:NOT. I keep having to talk about precedent only because folks keep bringing it up as a reason to keep (whereas it is not in fact a reason to keep anything, as I have been explaining ad nauseum). (2) Your mention of our lack of knowledge of Korean and Seoul is irrelevant, because notability is not a default presumption -- why should we assume that sources exist just because we lack the skills to look for Korean sources? Should we likewise assume that a telephone booth in Seoul is entitled to a presumption of notability until we can show otherwise? (3) As for "breaking precedent" -- the burden is not on me to show why precedent can be broken, it's on you to say why precedent is a good argument for keeping something. This is because precedent is not policy as WP:AFDP explicitly says. And your characterization of precedent as "de facto policy" is demonstrably invalid: witness Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_28/Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America, or the handful of non-notable school articles that have been deleted in the past couple of months. (4) No one here has proposed or remotely suggested having the "endless and innumerable AfD debates" that you seem to fear will happen. Again, school articles are nominated for deletion every day -- some get deleted, some kept -- even as the status of WP:SCHOOL/3 remain unresolved. (5) As to your comments on clear policy: we don't have to wait for a WP:STATION guideline to emerge; we already have a clear guideline, WP:N, which suggests deleting this article because of lack of sources. Of course, WP:N is not policy, but it is based on WP:V and WP:NOT, which are policies; and, whatever consensus emerges from the ongoing general discussion about station articles, it will certainly, like WP:N, not be a policy. Pan Dan 14:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, precedent shows that railway and subway stations are notable. Just becuase this station's article is a stub does not make it any more or any less notable than any of the other stations of this or any other system. The nomination gives no reasons why the nominator believes the stations on this network are less notable than stations on any other network - "This station does not has not yet had anything interesting written about it on Wikipedia, therefore all stations on this network must not be notable, therefore this article should not exist" is not sufficient reasoning. If you beleive that stations are non-notable then the place to discuss this is the discussion that is happening about this very topic. Thryduulf 18:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment "Precedent shows that ... stations are notable" -- No it doesn't, it just shows that stations have been kept. As to your comments about the nomination -- if the nominator's argument's don't convince you as to this station's non-notability, try reading mine above. There are no sources that we can use to write a Wikipedia article on this station -- that's what non-notability means on Wikipedia, and that's why this station is not notable. Pan Dan 01:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (or minimally merge somewhere), verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 00:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Verifiability is not enough; please see WP:NOT. And, you don't address the notability concern. Pan Dan 01:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• delete If the general issue is undecided, let us do what is right in the meantime. I would have said yes if any one item could be said about the station, Verifiable or not. Perhaps WP is not a map.DGG 03:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: There are several things which can be said. The station opened on XX-XX-XXXX; On an average day XX,XXX passengers (dis)embark at the station; Pictures of the platform/entrance/underground lobby; The station is near the Seoul municipal gov't building... etc. Some of these lend themselves nicely to a tabular format (open date), but not all of them. If the data for each station is shoved into an article about the line as a whole, it ends up as a cluttered mess. By having the stub, it also encourages others to add information about the station (someone who lives in the area may be inclined to take pictures, etc). Having a single row in a table would not encourage the same type of information collation. As for the factoids, I can't read Hangul, so, the SMRT website is not that useful to me, and I have no idea when the station opened, or what newspapers covered the event; or how many passengers use the station. (The last bit, regarding the central gov't, I inferred from reading some of the English google results). Neier 04:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Just want to point out here that there are several verifiable things that could be said about lots of things — the grocery store I go to, for example (and I could even take a picture of it!) — but that doesn't have anything to do with the question of notability. No keep 'ers at this debate have addressed notability except by saying "notable per precedent", which is nonsense -- notability is shown by multiple non-trivial sources, not by the outcomes of previous AFD debates. Pan Dan 13:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I should qualify my earlier statement. In every previous discussion about a railway station I have seen the consensus is overwhelmingly in favour of keeping. I believe it still largely is but the tide may certainly be changing now. I still retain my above opinion at the moment though. SM247^{My Talk} 05:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. The article as it is certainly doesn't provide any useful information. It needs some serious expansion. If it's never going to expand beyond its current state (basically one sentence), then it should be merged into the article on the subway line. If it can be expanded to be a more useful article, then it should certainly be kept as Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and therefore articles that may not warrant inclusion in a paper encyclopedia can certainly be included here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Hey, I would love to expand the article, but there is no indication that there are any sources that we can use to do that. It is, after all, a subway station. The lack of sources we can use to expand the article, is why the article should be deleted. Pan Dan 14:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Then it should be merged into the line article and redirected. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
      • • That sounds like a reasonable compromise. Pan Dan 22:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
      • My guess is that lots of valuable information is available in Korean. Just because I (or someone) doesn't know Korean isn't an indicator that no information is available. The concept of eventualism encourages the creation of stubs with the knowledge that eventually someone with the knowledge (perhaps a person living or working in the area) will add details like the structure of the station, the date it opened, major housing neighborhoods or businesses it serves, the impact of the subway opening on the economy of the district, and other valuable information. Those are some examples of information that make an article on a subway station encyclopedic, and eventuality is the reason for keeping a stub. As the article on eventualism says, "There is no deadline." That's why I voted to keep it and let it grow. Fg2 21:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
        • • It looks like the Korean article is pretty small, too. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
        • But you provide no evidence that it can grow with verifiable -- i.e. published -- information. I know lots about the grocery store I go to -- when it opened, its structure, the neighborhoods it serves, its finances -- but all of this is either not published in reliable sources, or published in routine government reports. Why would you think that there is "lots of valuable information ... available in Korean" that shows notability? This is, after all, a subway station, and I gather most subway stations in the English-speaking world, like this Korean station, don't attract much media coverage that we could use to write a good article. Pan Dan 22:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
      • "In the English speaking world" unnecessarily restricts your search. Whenever a station opens (at least in my part of Japan), there is a series of newspaper articles, TV news stories, etc. Whenever stations celebrate anniversaries (100th, 75th, etc) there are more articles. In Japan, there are multiple books and magazines dedicated to rail travel in general, and out-of-the-way stations are a common feature. Books which are essentially a compendium of all stations in a region, on a particular line, or of a particular company are not uncommon. Some of those books have information that even I would consider arcane (like, the fact that the eel bento is particularly tasty at one station). Some of that trivial info is already in articles on the ja: wikipedia. I would hazard a guess that Korea treats their rail infrastructure in much the same way, so the same sources would be there. In the case of Japan, Fg2, I, NihonJoe and others are fortunate enough to be able to search out some of the sources; but, until someone comes along with knowledge of Hangul, this article will likely remain a stub. Neier 23:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
        • You're speculating that there's non-trivial coverage out there. That's fine. But to show notability, someone actually has to show that there's non-trivial coverage out there. (I would dispute the non-triviality of some of the coverage that you say might exist (e.g. 100-anniversary celebrations), but before we even talk about that, we have to have the actual sources to talk about.) Pan Dan 23:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Actually, articles about subway stations are quite OK in my book. There are subway websites on some systems which have pretty good coverage on individual stations and people interested in transportation may enjoy such articles. Historically on AFD, there is a clear past precedent that they are notable enough. (As opposed to bus stops which are not.) But I do think that subway station articles need to be articles, and this page is simply empty: "Yeouinaru Station (여의나루역) is a station on the Seoul Subway Line 5" is not useful and fools the readers with a bluelink, making them think we have an article on the station when we don't. No prejudice against recreation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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.