Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harbour SkyLink

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 Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harbour SkyLink[edit]

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

Non-notable. Article is based on promoter's own website and a single newspaper article. There has been no further coverage of this proposal in the mainstream media. Additionally, the user who posted it was later found to be a sock puppet. Mqst north (talk) 13:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think an additional references tag would have been better than nominating it for deletion - it seems to have sufficient media coverage to pass WP:GNG, it just hasn't been incorporated into the article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could only find two articles, ever – an initial one (referenced on the page) from a major daily two months ago and a second from a local opinion site, apparently based on the first. Have you found anything else? My view is that something doesn't become notable simply because it gets a single article one day... particularly since there has been no mention of it since. Mqst north (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete the coverage is limited and seems to promote the concept. It's not really an infrastructure project, it has no funding nor government support just an idea of 1 or 2 people that hit the media cycle. LibStar (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete Not an official government proposal. Gareth (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No concrete evidence it will proceed, just on a wish list. Turingway (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Searches returned no significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:54, 17 August 2015 (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.