Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aoshima 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. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 03:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just seen the discussion below - Not sure what happened but basically the first nom never even existed so I've moved the 2nd nom to here to save all the confusion :) – Davey 2010 Talk 04:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Aoshima Station
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page should be deleted, because it has been unsourced for 4 years Wuerzele (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 3.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 22:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Stations are presumptively notable. Furthermore, a reference was added a couple of hours before this AfD was initiated... -Arb. (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi,User:Arb thanks for communicating finally. what is speedy keep (presumably an insider word)? you are the administrator I take it, who reverted me, removed the initial deletion tag saying in the edit summary "presumably notable". you also dropped a template on the talk page which says "previously proposed for deletion". Thanks, I had no idea about that. But how does that help me in proceeding with deletion or the discussion? It doesnt! Would you pleaaazze be so kind to let us see the discussion? I tried meddling with the code on this page and cant get it to show; I dont understand why there is only a box with the AfD discussion of the second nomination (self-reflexed).
 * secondly, "presumably notable" adds no new info to the deletion discussion for me. it does not guarantee inclusion on WP. millions of notable things exist that dont have wikipages, and for the time being Aoshima Station should be one.
 * thirdly maybe realizing the above, you make a case for the mysterious speedy keep by dropping a raw link, to make it appear sourced. you call that a "reference", incorrectly. This stub was created years before the 2011 no-sources-flag and nobody bothered to source it. I dont think it should be kept, because of that history. Or, are you saying you will be the person that builds the article?
 * I conclude, that you are not an impartial admin, but you are involved, partial to the case. --Wuerzele (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem a little inexperienced on Wikipedia Wuerzele:
 * Admins have a mop icon at the top left of their user and talk pages.
 * There is a long standing convention that all stations are presumed to be notable; see for example the discussion here.
 * Your initial deletion tag was a Prod; Any editor may contest one of those. The template on the talk page is a record of the Prod.
 * As for objecting the adding of a reference to the article...

-Arb. (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making me experienced in suggesting an article for deletion, and revealing in a very roundabout way that you are an ordinary editor like myself. otherwise, your comment is more than redundant to the matter at hand, with the third (!) repetition of "all stations presumed notable".
 * Instead of really responding, you dodged the question, what is speedy keep ?
 * Since belittling (other ordinary) editors by jumping to conclusions ("inexperienced") where direct communication would solve or reveal other benign possibilities to explain an observed fact doesn't look good/ is poor WP:netiquette, I sincerely hope you do no longer extend this behavior towards the many other inexperienced or even novice editors. --Wuerzele (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - can easily be expanded from the corresponding Japanese Wikipedia article. Mjroots (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Mjroots: ...can be ? Is this a crystal ball ? of course it can be, no doubt ! that's not the point. It hasnt been sourced. It hasnt been sourced in 2010 when created, not in 2011 when flagged, not in 2012, 2013, 2014 and not this year. as soon as something has a page here on WP, it must be sourced, that's the rule. Because of excessive leniency / ignoring this basic rule there's a plethora of unsourced write-ups that really do tarnish WP. The reason for my proposal is, I looked up 'Aoshima' and there are numerous poor quality articles starting with Aoshima (please check}. And I found this one, a one sentence stub, that never took off, most appropriate to propose a deletion for.
 * If you have a garden and you stick seeds in the ground and they barely make it to the 2-leaf stage, lets say, they wither and stay 1 cm high, you cant tell me, oh, this could be expanded so easily, with a little this and a little that -not if there's no gardener. that's it. you want to keep a dead seedling dead since 5 years? Why if there s NOTHING wasted by deletion? Please lets make room and leave the field for new and proper articles. WP should not have any one-sentence unsourced stubs for years and years, however notable their topics may be.--Wuerzele (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NORUSH and WP:NOTFINISHED. That said, nomination for deletion can lead to vast improvement in an article (q.v. Articles for deletion/Wherry Maud). To this end, I will ask at WP level for assistance. Mjroots (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done Mjroots (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , thanks for pinging me and thanks for adding to the stub.what do you mean by 'ask at WP level for assistance'?--Wuerzele (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP is shorthand for Wikiproject. In this case, Wikiproject Trains in Japan (WP:TIJ) is the most relevant. I posted a message at the talk page, WT:TIJ in the hope that Japanese-speaking editors might pitch in and improve the article. Mjroots (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't need to "make room". Wikipedia is not paper and there is room for all articles. The simple fact is that WP editors over many years have decided that all railway stations are notable. Its existence (which can easily be determined by looking at a map) is enough to keep an article on it. And there's nothing wrong with stubs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , thanks for pinging me and thanks for your interest. I already mentioned I am aware of the notability so that part of your comment is redundant. However you didnt respond to my counterargument that notability doesnt guarantee inclusion. As far as " WP no paper", theres always room, this also appears redundant, as my argument transcended it. I gave you an example how a plethora of low quality articles/stubs clutters the place. Yet you posit, that a virtual space doesnt obey the bounds of space and time, when approached by a human, a reader? Your illusion of infinite electronic space is borne out by electric power, functioning hardware, cables and internet service + maintenance of all the aforementioned, all of which is limited. plus human readers dont have infinite time. So, there needs to be a compromise but I see you dont see it. - no need to respond- you are obviously not getting my point and in the majority who want to cling to this. --Wuerzele (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, we get your point. We just don't agree with it. Some classes of things are inherently notable, and they include railway stations. This has been determined over many AfDs in which many of us have participated. The validity of stubs, as long as the subject is notable (which you apparently agree it is), has also been agreed by the WP community over many years. The fact that Wikipedia doesn't need to be space-limited has also been agreed by the community over many years. Coming along and saying, as you basically are, "ah, but you're all wrong and I'm right" does not help. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. As has already been mentioned, simple lack of reference sources in an article is not in itself a valid reason for deletion if reference sources are clearly available. If the AFD was just a way of getting someone to improve and expand the article, then it worked, as following on from Mjroots' work, I have added more basic information and a reference source. --DAJF (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * DAJF thanks. you are the one person that contributed more to the actual article than this discussion.--Wuerzele (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. We always keep articles on railway stations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Wuerzele (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2015 (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.