Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitanoda 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 Snow keep this isn't going to get deleted. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 12:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kitanoda Station

Completing unfinished nom for 70.56.168.6 Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no significant independent coverage. The author contested the prod saying that other train stations exist. I do not see the notability of this one. There is the presence of an interwiki link but again no references are provided failing the primary criterion of notability. 70.56.168.6 (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: 70.56.168.6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

Keep. Railway stations, like towns and members of parliament, are inherently notable. --Eastmain (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? Inherent notability has not been established as consensus. 70.56.168.6 (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd sooner gouge my eyes out with a grapefruit spoon than read through these innumerable town/railroad station/city street pothole articles, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no reason for an Afd. In fact, I happily tolerate the existence of articles like these because they are informative, useful, and yes-- encyclopedic. And even if we step out of the real world and use Wiki-think: it seems there is a policy or guideline that says towns and railroad stations and the like are inherently notable. Now, if we could only get the Wiki-community to admit that film-acting, for instance, is an inherently "notable" profession, a huge amount of conflict, ill-will and wasted time could be avoided at the project. But we'll see Grand Central Station at AfD before that happens... Dekkappai (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misjudge my motives. The article is not encyclopedic but a directory, something Wikipedia is not. To stay on focus with this afd saying WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep. Please point me to policy that says train stations are inherently notable. 70.56.168.6 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, then I say, "Assuming I am assuming bad faith is in itself bad faith..." I'm sick of these time-wasting Wiki-games. What is wrong with you people? It's an article on a verifiable, real subject. It's not a hoax. It's informative. Why the hell delete it? Dekkappai (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You state: "WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no reason for an Afd.". That's a pretty explicit reference to this afd and me. If you still doubt why I suggest deleting it please read my nomination statement. 70.56.168.6 (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Eastmain, verifiable train stops on major train lines are notable. There are some that aren't because they d on't exist, but this one is a station on a major line in a major city. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 17:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's verifiable but there is no significant coverage of the train station. The article is just a directory style listing. I fail to see how this is notable. 70.56.168.6 (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep only because other stations on the line are included as well, and removing one individual station will not accomplish much. AFD the entire set of articles, and I might be apt to vote delete. Spell4yr (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just because an article isn't fleshed out at this stage doesn't mean it should be deleted. Expansion is preferable. The Japanese article looks to be considerably longer than this one; perhaps some content can be translated and added to this. matt91486 (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the various arguments already given. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly legitimate topic for an article Fg2 (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my opinion, Railway stations are inherently notable as are covered by WP:RS such as government planning documents, etc. Yep, I know there isn't a policy that states this! Nk.sheridan Talk 21:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not only are train stations generally notable (especially major urban ones like this), just by virtue of being a publicly funded rail station, by law, extensive government documents of proposals, budgets and administration exist. I'm also troubled that this was prodded for deletion in less than two hours of the article's creation [1] and that the the supposedly "new user" had the fortitude and knowledge to make the prod on their 3rd ever edit.[2] Might this be a sock? --Oakshade (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is not really relevant as regards this discussion unless the suspected sock puppet has commented at this AfD discussion. If there is a issue with a suspected sock puppet it should be taken to WP:Suspected sock puppets. Cheers, Nk.sheridan Talk 00:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wasted time AfD, because, yes, train stations, major ones on major lines, even without significant coverage (although I don't read Japanese) have long been established as notable by the Wikipedia community. There's no policy, but this is what has been going on, train stations belong. There are not many things you can buy maps and postcards of in almost every nationality of tourist city, but railroad stations are one thing. They have an assumed notability among human beings of all cultural backgrounds. I don't see a snowball's chance in hell of getting this deleted. --Blechnic (talk) 05:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Railway stations are the kind of topics which paper encyclopedias traditionally cover, for example my paper encyclopedia has entries on Haugastøl and Hallingskeid which are smaller and less significant than this one. The current article is poor, but it does have some information about its location relative to other stations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:20, 11 June 2008 (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.