- 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. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 00:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- Iyoki Station ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:V Rhadow ( talk) 22:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Three seconds with Google satisifes WP:V including a category at Commons. The article does need referencing desperately, but that is something to be done in normal editing, not at AfD. The nominator is reminded that when it comes to V, for anything other than BLPs the article itself does not need to cite "this is a real thing", it only needs to have that proof exist. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- WP:V means that readers can verify the information, not that editors can verify the information. Unscintillating ( talk) 02:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment --
The Bushranger, my Gooogle search, taking well over three seconds, did not turn up any reliable independent secondary sources in English. You have asserted there are plenty. Please add two ... as others have not done for the last nine years.
Rhadow (
talk)
14:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- As noted below, that is not what I said and that is not how WP:V works. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per The Bushranger. Rhadow, WP:RS does not require that sources are in English. They are given priority over non-English sources where they exist, but an article can be fully referenced to non-English sources if necessary. Mjroots ( talk) 19:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- I understand that references do not have to be in English. That's not the point, I contend there is no Iyoki Station as no one has provided to the article an independent reliable citation in any language for nine years. Wikipedia and Wikimedia are not reliable sources.
Rhadow (
talk)
19:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- ...that is
not how references work. As noted by Mjroots, sources do not have to be in the article to pass
WP:V, and
a third-party reliable source is not needed to pass
WP:V.
WP:N, yes, but "there are no sources in the article, therefore I conclude that it doesn't exist" is something that leaves me absolutely dumbfounded. Now, the lack of references would be something to open the 'are railway stations inherently notable' can of worms, and had you cited
WP:GNG or
WP:STATION in your nomination, it would have been a valid nomination. Instead you chose to cite
WP:V, which, as the article has a photograph of the station that establishes
it exists, makes it a case of
speedy keep #3 applying. -
The Bushranger
One ping only
01:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Youtube is not a reliable source. Sources that are not in the article provide no verifiability, so finding them does not make the article verifiable. WP:V#Notability is different in that it requires a third-party source be found for the topic of the article, but that source does not have to be cited. WP:N does not require any sources. Why you think the picture verifies anything is a mystery. The picture has some Japanese characters at an angle, so maybe you read Japanese? Unscintillating ( talk) 02:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- ...that is
not how references work. As noted by Mjroots, sources do not have to be in the article to pass
WP:V, and
a third-party reliable source is not needed to pass
WP:V.
WP:N, yes, but "there are no sources in the article, therefore I conclude that it doesn't exist" is something that leaves me absolutely dumbfounded. Now, the lack of references would be something to open the 'are railway stations inherently notable' can of worms, and had you cited
WP:GNG or
WP:STATION in your nomination, it would have been a valid nomination. Instead you chose to cite
WP:V, which, as the article has a photograph of the station that establishes
it exists, makes it a case of
speedy keep #3 applying. -
The Bushranger
One ping only
01:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- I understand that references do not have to be in English. That's not the point, I contend there is no Iyoki Station as no one has provided to the article an independent reliable citation in any language for nine years. Wikipedia and Wikimedia are not reliable sources.
Rhadow (
talk)
19:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep per Bushranger Night fury 08:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. All railway stations are considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Question -- All railway stations are considered to be notable. -- Where is this policy established?
Rhadow (
talk)
16:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Consensus over many AfDs. That's how consensus is always established. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep The threshold of notability for transportation topics is generally extremely low; I have no doubt that this meets those standards. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 02:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Notability is not a content guideline. Content in the article does not define notability; and notability does not define content in the article, with an exception regarding certain lists. See WP:ARTN and WP:NEXIST. Unscintillating ( talk) 02:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment The first sentence of WP:V states, "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." Unscintillating ( talk) 02:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep
DeleteThe article fails WP:V ( WP:DEL7 with IAR for the source search, and see also WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators). Using AfD to source unsourced articles is a questionable use of editorial resources, since the article must be entirely rewritten. This article might well be an exception, but no one so far seems interested in turning this into an article that satisfies our core content policies. Unscintillating ( talk) 02:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- Article now has citations. Unscintillating ( talk) 00:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep − As far as I could tell from my search, 伊与喜駅 a.k.a. Iyoko Station, a.k.a. Ioko Station is notable. gidonb ( talk) 14:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- WP:Verifiability is a core content policy, and as per WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators, "core content policies...are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." This deletion guideline further states, "Where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, policy must be respected above individual opinions." Unlike NPOV, which might have a grey area, this particular case is a bright line, as it unambiguously breaches verifiability policy. Note that the deletion guideline further states, "If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, said argument is no longer relevant." Unscintillating ( talk) 14:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hello Unscintillating -- You say, " Using AfD to source unsourced articles is a questionable use of editorial resources." I had looked WP:BEFORE with a reasonable amount of effort. Nothing found. Now we are getting claims of notability for a station spelled differently in English. What is the alternative, let these articles molder for another nine years? Rhadow ( talk) 14:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- In the big picture, notability is a minor guideline blown out of proportion at AfD. See also WP:RAILOUTCOMES.Core content policies are different. We can hope that a closer will make a policy-based close, but I suspect that before that happens a closer will source the article instead of closing, rendering our delete arguments moot. At that point, I can change my !vote to keep, and if that happens I think you should consider withdrawing your nomination. Unscintillating ( talk) 16:07, 12 November 2017 (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.
- 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. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 00:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- Iyoki Station ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:V Rhadow ( talk) 22:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Three seconds with Google satisifes WP:V including a category at Commons. The article does need referencing desperately, but that is something to be done in normal editing, not at AfD. The nominator is reminded that when it comes to V, for anything other than BLPs the article itself does not need to cite "this is a real thing", it only needs to have that proof exist. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- WP:V means that readers can verify the information, not that editors can verify the information. Unscintillating ( talk) 02:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment --
The Bushranger, my Gooogle search, taking well over three seconds, did not turn up any reliable independent secondary sources in English. You have asserted there are plenty. Please add two ... as others have not done for the last nine years.
Rhadow (
talk)
14:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- As noted below, that is not what I said and that is not how WP:V works. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per The Bushranger. Rhadow, WP:RS does not require that sources are in English. They are given priority over non-English sources where they exist, but an article can be fully referenced to non-English sources if necessary. Mjroots ( talk) 19:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- I understand that references do not have to be in English. That's not the point, I contend there is no Iyoki Station as no one has provided to the article an independent reliable citation in any language for nine years. Wikipedia and Wikimedia are not reliable sources.
Rhadow (
talk)
19:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- ...that is
not how references work. As noted by Mjroots, sources do not have to be in the article to pass
WP:V, and
a third-party reliable source is not needed to pass
WP:V.
WP:N, yes, but "there are no sources in the article, therefore I conclude that it doesn't exist" is something that leaves me absolutely dumbfounded. Now, the lack of references would be something to open the 'are railway stations inherently notable' can of worms, and had you cited
WP:GNG or
WP:STATION in your nomination, it would have been a valid nomination. Instead you chose to cite
WP:V, which, as the article has a photograph of the station that establishes
it exists, makes it a case of
speedy keep #3 applying. -
The Bushranger
One ping only
01:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Youtube is not a reliable source. Sources that are not in the article provide no verifiability, so finding them does not make the article verifiable. WP:V#Notability is different in that it requires a third-party source be found for the topic of the article, but that source does not have to be cited. WP:N does not require any sources. Why you think the picture verifies anything is a mystery. The picture has some Japanese characters at an angle, so maybe you read Japanese? Unscintillating ( talk) 02:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- ...that is
not how references work. As noted by Mjroots, sources do not have to be in the article to pass
WP:V, and
a third-party reliable source is not needed to pass
WP:V.
WP:N, yes, but "there are no sources in the article, therefore I conclude that it doesn't exist" is something that leaves me absolutely dumbfounded. Now, the lack of references would be something to open the 'are railway stations inherently notable' can of worms, and had you cited
WP:GNG or
WP:STATION in your nomination, it would have been a valid nomination. Instead you chose to cite
WP:V, which, as the article has a photograph of the station that establishes
it exists, makes it a case of
speedy keep #3 applying. -
The Bushranger
One ping only
01:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- I understand that references do not have to be in English. That's not the point, I contend there is no Iyoki Station as no one has provided to the article an independent reliable citation in any language for nine years. Wikipedia and Wikimedia are not reliable sources.
Rhadow (
talk)
19:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep per Bushranger Night fury 08:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. All railway stations are considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Question -- All railway stations are considered to be notable. -- Where is this policy established?
Rhadow (
talk)
16:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Consensus over many AfDs. That's how consensus is always established. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep The threshold of notability for transportation topics is generally extremely low; I have no doubt that this meets those standards. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 02:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Notability is not a content guideline. Content in the article does not define notability; and notability does not define content in the article, with an exception regarding certain lists. See WP:ARTN and WP:NEXIST. Unscintillating ( talk) 02:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment The first sentence of WP:V states, "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." Unscintillating ( talk) 02:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep
DeleteThe article fails WP:V ( WP:DEL7 with IAR for the source search, and see also WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators). Using AfD to source unsourced articles is a questionable use of editorial resources, since the article must be entirely rewritten. This article might well be an exception, but no one so far seems interested in turning this into an article that satisfies our core content policies. Unscintillating ( talk) 02:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- Article now has citations. Unscintillating ( talk) 00:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep − As far as I could tell from my search, 伊与喜駅 a.k.a. Iyoko Station, a.k.a. Ioko Station is notable. gidonb ( talk) 14:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- WP:Verifiability is a core content policy, and as per WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators, "core content policies...are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." This deletion guideline further states, "Where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, policy must be respected above individual opinions." Unlike NPOV, which might have a grey area, this particular case is a bright line, as it unambiguously breaches verifiability policy. Note that the deletion guideline further states, "If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, said argument is no longer relevant." Unscintillating ( talk) 14:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hello Unscintillating -- You say, " Using AfD to source unsourced articles is a questionable use of editorial resources." I had looked WP:BEFORE with a reasonable amount of effort. Nothing found. Now we are getting claims of notability for a station spelled differently in English. What is the alternative, let these articles molder for another nine years? Rhadow ( talk) 14:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- In the big picture, notability is a minor guideline blown out of proportion at AfD. See also WP:RAILOUTCOMES.Core content policies are different. We can hope that a closer will make a policy-based close, but I suspect that before that happens a closer will source the article instead of closing, rendering our delete arguments moot. At that point, I can change my !vote to keep, and if that happens I think you should consider withdrawing your nomination. Unscintillating ( talk) 16:07, 12 November 2017 (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.