Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeouinaru Station
1) "your arguments seem to be more about ''breaking precedent'', not about this station" -- Not so.  Please read my delete comment above.  I looked in Google and Lexis-Nexis and found no non-trivial sources (and was not surprised by this -- why should there be non-trivial sources about a subway station?).  My argument to delete is based on , which is a guideline based on the policies of  and OT.  I keep having to talk about precedent only because folks keep bringing it up as a reason to keep (whereas it is not in fact a reason to keep anything, as I have been explaining ad nauseum).  (2) Your mention of our lack of knowledge of Korean and Seoul is irrelevant, because notability is not a default presumption -- why should we ''assume'' that sources exist just because we lack the skills to look for Korean sources?  Should we likewise assume that a telephone booth in Seoul is entitled to a presumption of notability until we can show otherwise?  (3) As for "breaking precedent" -- the burden is not on me to show why precedent ''can'' be broken, it's on you to say why precedent is a good argument for keeping something.  This is because precedent is not policy as  explicitly says.  And your characterization of precedent as "de facto policy" is demonstrably invalid: witness Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_28/Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America, or the handful of non-notable school articles that have been Wikipedia:Schoolwatch|deleted in the past couple of months.  (4) No one here has proposed or remotely suggested having the "endless and innumerable AfD debates" that you seem to fear will happen.  Again, school articles are nominated for deletion every day -- some get deleted, some kept -- even as the status of WP:SCHOOL/3 remain unresolved.  (5) As to your comments on clear policy: we don't have to wait for a WP:STATION guideline to emerge; we already have a clear guideline, , which suggests deleting this article because of lack of sources.  Of course,  is not policy, but it is based on  and OT, which are policies; and, whatever consensus emerges from the ongoing general discussion about station articles, it will certainly, like , ''not'' be a policy
— User:Pan, 14:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:N||WP:V||WP:NOT||WP:AFDP||WP:N (Wikipedia:Notability)