Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siheung Daeya 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Siheung Daeya station

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Per WP:NTRAINSTATION, "Train stations have no inherent notability and are not presumed notable for simply being train stations, but may be notable if they satisfy the WP:GNG criteria, the criteria of another subject-specific notability guideline, or other criteria within this notability guideline." This article does not appear to meet general notability guidelines (unless perhaps the Korean-language articles bring to light notability). A Google search has provided no additional sources to prove notability. ETA: Apologies for not bundling AfDs.Significa liberdade (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and South Korea. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Wonjong station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Sinhyeon station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Siheung City Hall station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Siu station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Wonsi station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Seonbu station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Dalmi station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Siheung Neunggok station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.

Keep. The article already has 2 references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One of which doesn't even mention the station and the other with only a couple paragraphs describing a naming dispute. Did you even read the sources? JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Seohae Line#Stations per WP:NTRAINSTATION and WP:GNG. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a few sources regarding expansion of the station. In addition, the sources I supplied noted a fourth exit under construction; sources regarding its opening/delay should exist but we need someone fluent in Korean to make a better search query than what I did (only searched the korean station name). Jumpytoo Talk 08:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jumpytoo: Both of the sources are just routine coverage. Unless there's anything else that suggests notability, I still believe redirecting is the best option. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In general, railway stations with lots of passenger traffic are likely to be notable. Further digging by other editors is likely to find enough references to demonstrate notability for each of the South Korean metro stations that are being discussed. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSTBESOURCES, And what is "lots of passenger traffic", sounds like a vague criterion. LibStar (talk) 10:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Seohae Line#Stations. The keep !votes presented so far are quite weak. LibStar (talk) 10:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per cites added by Eastmain. –Davey2010^Talk 15:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the additional sources added, which is sufficient to pass WP:GNG. JaventheAldericky (talk) 04:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see a consensus to Keep this article based on "cites added" but looking at the article, I can't see that any sources have been added and none have been brought up in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for consistency. The refs added seem to be http://www.kyeongin.com/main/view.php?key=20200101010000032 and http://www.shtimes.kr/news/article.html?no=8127. They look alright (based on machine translation). If others such as Sinhyeon station and Wonjong station were closed as keep then I suppose this should be as well, otherwise the whole group should probably all be reopened again. - Indefensible (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This subject meets WP:GNG based on references in the article at this moment. 3 of the 4 references provide SIGCOV. One discusses in depth the naming of the station in 2018, two discuss in depth varying aspects of the opening of a third entrance to the station in late 2019 —siro χ o 04:30, 14 August 2023 (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.