Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chowchilla Wye

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 California High-Speed Rail. czar 02:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chowchilla Wye[edit]

[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)

This structure does not exist yet, in fact it is not even under construction or fully funded yet. Unclear if it will be. In terms of the sourcing, the closest thing to significant coverage is reference 6 (Fresno Bee) but this is an item that could be incorporated into the main high speed rail article Nweil (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeSignificant coverage is also given in reference 1: "Bullet train has 4 route options around one California town as foes plan court appeal". being (currently) unfunded and (currently) not under construction has no bearing on the validity of discussing the subject: see Mid-Pacific Railroad, North–South Rail Link, etc. Article describes an unusual structure on the line, such as the Oakland Wye, Keddie Wye, Pacheco Pass Tunnels, etc. -MJ (talk) 06:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I want to second-motion for this article to be merged and redirected with the California High-Speed Rail under the 'Route and stations' heading. Citations are perfectly reliable, but it just doesn't seem worthy to have it's own dedicated page. Thanks. JayzBox (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, Agreed that there is significant coverage already. The article that this is proposed to be merged into is already rather long (100,000 bytes) so I think it is better to keep this information as a seperate page. NemesisAT (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An article about an unbuilt piece of infrastructure on the unbuilt track of an non-existent railway, sourced by passing mentions in local newspapers and news sources. No redirect, because what would it redirect FROM? --Calton | Talk 00:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into California High-Speed Rail. Not only has it not been built, but they haven't even finished deciding if they want to build it. Obviously, this will have an article the second the shovel hits the ground (or, indeed, the second the pen hits the paper) but for now it's kind of a meme. jp×g 06:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into California High-Speed Rail. WP:TOO SOON, it can get recreated later if it ends up being built but currently it doesn't have enough notability to warrant it's own article. Suonii180 (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into California High-Speed Rail. Hasn't been constructed, yet. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into California High-Speed Rail per Suonii180 and JayzBox. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2021 (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.