Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mangyongdae Line


 * 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 Merge to Chollima Line. BD2412 T 04:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Mangyongdae Line

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This line does not exist in any official map. It bases off all information off one source. All maps (http://2427junction.com/70z-01032.jpg) even the newest maps (http://2427junction.com/70a-1z005.jpg) only depict two lines, both of which have the same colour. There is no mention of this line existing at all at any other sources either. Gorden 2211 (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Gorden 2211 (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Gorden 2211 (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Keep I have added a 2019 South Korean newspaper citation that details the 1987 opening of the line as an extension of the Cheonlima Line to the page. Also, this map, used on the same article for the Korean Wikipedia and for Pyongyang Metro shows the line in yellow, albeit seeming to be an extension of the Hyoksin line. Perhaps that confusion needs to be cleared up, but either way, the Mangyongdae extension line certainly appears to exist. And, I cannot make out the pictures presented above by the nominator for proof either way.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Bonnielou2013, Chinese sources say only two line exist. Also map attached has an error. Tram Line 1 no longer travels over the Taedong River. Other Chinese sources present the so called 'mangyongdae line' an extension of the Chollima line that was opened in 1987. The image of the routes in the second link posted above shows that the two lines are labled in different colours, and there is no third colour for any other line. This name may only refer at most to this section and not an entire line Gorden 2211 (talk) 00:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge to Chollima Line: If this is an extension of the Chollima Line, and the article on that line is a stub, that doesn't provide justification for splitting the line into 2 articles.  Username 6892 18:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge per above. Best option at present time. Nightfury 07:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge, only because the line is not marked on a offical map. But keep the info that they might be separate lines, like Daxing line and Line 4 on the Beijing subway, as there are sources dated to 2000 supporting it.    Techie3 (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to Chollima Line. As the article itself documents, it is really not a separate line but a continuation. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:13, 13 August 2020 (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.