Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/103rd (CTA 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 merge to Red Ahead (CTA). Merge away! SarahStierch (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

103rd (CTA station)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am also nominating the following pages for the same reason:

Article is about a proposed station of the Red Ahead (CTA) project in the very early planning stages, and it is not definite that it will actually be built or even designed. It is not appropriate to have an article at this time, as it is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect all to Red Ahead (CTA). Even if there's some coverage talking about the proposed stations as separate from the overall project, whether supportive or critical, that can and probably should be covered within the general scope of Red Ahead. I'm not aware of a specific policy or guideline about transit stations, but I think even in the presence of a guideline that permits articles on proposed transit stations, these should be subsumed within the discussion of the entire expansion project unless and until there is substantial controversy focusing on one of these as a special focus of controversy per WP:GNG and its underlying policy concerns. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Red Ahead (CTA). I don't think the Red Line extension won't be built at all because the CTA is focused on other projects like the Cermak–McCormick Place and Washington/Wabash projects and the Red Line extension will cost $1 billion to build and the CTA does not have that money. 12.168.128.77 (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before people decry this editor's rationale as irrelevant given WP:V, let me suggest that it's essentially echoing the policy considerations in WP:XBALL. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Transit stations are almost always individually notable, but proposed ones are not automatically so. At this point in time the proposals are not firm enough for there to be sufficient encyclopaedic information on the individual stations for us to write an article about each of them. This may change in future, and if it does this discussion should not prejudice a future resplitting if the volume of information warrants it. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2013 (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.