Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bottineau Boulevard

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/merge. Krimpet (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bottineau Boulevard

Completing a nomination. No reason for deletion has been given; however, it is not obvious to me that we should have this article, so here we are. Tizio 11:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' This article is about a proposed transit line that does not exist yet. There is no evidence that it is notable enough to have an article. Edison 14:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Proposed transit line" leaves me with the feeling this might not be built. Is there anyone who can confirm this line has progressed beyond the planning stage? If so, keep; otherwise delete. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-18 14:40Z
Merge to Hennepin County Road 81, maybe. I don't know if the line has progressed beyond the planning stage, but they're doing some pretty significant construction in Robbinsdale, Minnesota right now. According to the Hennepin County construction page, though, they're just rebuilding County Road 81 throughout most of Robbinsdale. (As an aside, I grew up a block away from this road, back when it was still U.S. Route 52. But I digress.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as stub I fixed a typo. It was obviously hastily put up. Bearian 18:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hennepin County Road 81. I really don't think two sentences on a rail line that may or may not be built can stand on its own. --Sable232 13:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I find these proposed projects to be important. When you look at the range of projects under consideration by the Metropolitan Council it makes sense to me to have a stub article for each of them. --Appraiser 15:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep As this corridor has its own website and generates news articles, it seems like there's enough information for a short article. That said, there seems to be some problems with a few Minnesota transit articles that were added over-eagerly. I posted the following at WikiProject Minnesota's talk:

Elkman, it looks like there may be some bad-faith editing going on in Template:Twin_Cities_Transit and a number of articles linked to it. I detailed some of the problems on MegaHL90's talk page. Some of the articles linked from the transit article are completely unsourced (Google searches turn up only the articles themselves). Additionally, some reasonable-looking edits were marked by MegaHL90 as 'Vandalism'. Finally, unless MegaHL90 comes up with some citations, a couple more articles may need to be deleted or at least renamed.

As an aside, I don't have any problem with transit corridors having articles -- if there had been Wikipedia in the 1970's, the article for the Hiawatha Corridor might have been interesting, even though LRT took another couple decades to come to fruition.

- Afiler 14:52, 26 April 2007 (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.