Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akabira 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The result was Withdrawn‎. Nom Withdraws (non-admin closure) 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Akabira 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)

Non-notable Train Station, no references since 2011. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Japan. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the Japanese article appears to have several sources and additional content that can be used to expand the English article. Garuda3 (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it hasn't been improved for over a decade is an indicator that it wont be improved in the near future. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it have to be improved, it would meet GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Improved includes adding the references to the article, as long as the references are not in the article it does not pass GNG. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Japanese wiki article has a dozen sources and gives a rundown of the history of the station. Refs 1 and 5 in particular, then there are additional listings in the "further readings section" at the bottom. Oaktree b (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They don't count unless included in the English Article, if you want to you can add them if no one adds them there is no point in having the article. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AFD isn't clean up, the fact that there are sources that aren't here isn't a valid reason to delete the article Oaktree b (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the high probability of the article staying in it;s current state is. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's clear that a WP:BEFORE search has not been conducted. AfD is not a venue for cleanup of substandard articles, it's a last resort. Sounder Bruce 19:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When an article has been tagged for clean-up for over a decade the odds of it getting improved are next to none, In the Articles Current state it does not pass GNG. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly passes GNG through sources in the Japanese article and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article blatantly passes GNG per above voters, the references do not need to be in the article for the topic to meet GNG as per WP:NEXIST. Jumpytoo Talk 03:01, 7 December 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.