Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plaza de Mayo (Buenos Aires Metro)


 * 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)  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C ) 03:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Plaza de Mayo (Buenos Aires Metro)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

We have the article Line A (Buenos Aires Metro), we don't really need articles about each specific station. There's very little to say about them, besides trivial information (such as which building are near it, or the decoration). After all, they are just places where the train stops and people get in or out. Notability is not inherited. Any actually meaningful information can be detailed at the main article Cambalachero (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete all I suspect that this is simply the case of a user trying to boost their page creation count. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What a BS. You should be banned from Wikipedia. BrasiliaBrasilia (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My apoligies, sincerely, if you took that personally or badly. There is nothing wrong with trying to boost your counts. The question comes to how loosey-goosey one goes about it. It wasn't a personal attack. Sometimes the written word doesn't translate so well, if you were offended, I'll take responsibility. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Uncalled for, mate. Speaking of banning, as your !vote here was only your sixth edit to Wikipedia and your first was a well-executed Wiki-formatting, might you be a sock of a banned user? --Oakshade (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep all - Metro station in a metro city area of over 12 million. Per long-standing convention, such stations are considered inherently notable. It's absolutely impossible for such a major project to be planned, built, completed and refurbished without extensive government proposals, surveys and reports. That a vast majority of these stations opened in 1913 or 1914, I find it impossible that there is no historical coverage of them.  Such a deletion proposal would never be made to any London Underground station article.  This might have aspects of systemic bias. --Oakshade (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep all- There is a long-standing precedent of notability of metro stations. Multiple templates for creating such pages exist. Metro station articles for most major cities are rampant. I know that "because something else exists" is not a reason, but in this case, it highlights the accepted notability of metro station articles. jsfouche &#9789;&#9790; Talk 01:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep all - what are you talking about, does that mean that stations in 78 cities throughout the world are going to be eliminated, see: Railway stations by city, and that stations in countries throughout the world will also be eliminated, see Railway stations by country, this really sounds like absolute nonsence — Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep alll BrasiliaBrasilia (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC) — BrasiliaBrasilia (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep per Moebiusuibeom-en, plus nomination is really seeking a merge, not deletion.--Milowent • hasspoken 04:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Other major cities (London, New York, Paris, etc) have dedicated articles for each subway station. No need to single out this one city for second-class treatment.  --Noleander (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - There are certainly train station entries for places like Sydney in Australia, so no reason why Buenos Aires shouldn't have theirs.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - For the sake of consensus I will switch my vote. I am smart enough to know when I might be seeing things the wrong way, and adult enough to admit it. I don't fully agree with the reasoning that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I will go with the flow on this one. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ...good going dude — Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2012 (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.