Puksinhyon station: Fails WP:GNG and WP:STATION .  Could be merged with Korean State Railway .  OsmiumGuard ( talk ) 15:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC) \ [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] keep It does have some features of prominence: "the starting point of the narrow-gauge Unsan Line to Samsan."  Not to say yhat in susch situation the option advised by WP:GNG is to merge not delete.  - Altenmann >talk 19:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep it doesn't make to merge it with the Korean State Railway article as that article is too broad in scope.  Additionally, this is a junction station so it serves a navigational purpose and it doesn't make sense to merge it with one line when it is on multiple.  Garuda3 ( talk ) 23:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would argue that simply being a junction doesn't give a station notability, according to my interpretation of WP:STATION.  Even in Korean I couldn't find anything outside of the fact that it exists.  Granted, this may be because of the fact that the North Korean internet is not very good at presenting information about its country.  OsmiumGuard ( talk ) 00:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Week Keep I am going to WP:AGF the one source in the article has SIGCOV, combined with this source where the snippet suggests it has significant coverage makes it cross the line, just barely.  백과 전서 (in Korean).  과학, 백과 사전 출판사.  1982.  Jumpytoo Talk 03:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Specific analysis of available source material would be very helpful.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Fails WP:GNG / WP:SIGCOV .  None of the voters above made a policy based vote.  A single source, no matter how in-depth, does not meet the multiple sources requirement.  That said, nobody has seen this source and there is no evidence that it has in-depth coverage.  Additionally, there is no obvious merge or redirect target, so WP:ATD can't be invoked.  The closer should consider the strength of the arguments.  I strongly contest a keep or no consensus close given that the other opinions outright ignored deletion policy.  4meter4 ( talk ) 16:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  06:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Manpo Line .  Non notable station, no evidence of WP:SIGCOV .  Contributor892z ( talk ) 09:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV .  Single source is insufficient to prove its notable, which defines the fact that can't be merged, because its not notable.  If it was there would be more sources.  It is a straight-delete.  No indication of significance to support a redirect.  scope_creep Talk 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Manpo Line , as it is listed there.  I also cannot find evidence of WP:SIGCOV , and unless proven otherwise, from the brief excerpt at our disposal the one source mentioned in this discussion doesn't show significant coverage.  Every other ! keep vote is not motivated by a policy-based rationale.  Pilaz ( talk ) 09:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Manpo Line : As a valid train station WP:ATD .  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: redirect