Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line G (Buenos Aires Underground)

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. Enigma^msg 19:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Line G (Buenos Aires Underground)

[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)

Stub about a subway line that probably will never be realized and there is not enough material to expand the current page. There is no real project, so it is a hypothetical line. I think it is enough to talk about it on the Buenos Aires Underground page (as already happens; This page does not add any information), at least until there are further developments. Wind of freedom (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Firstly the "will probably never be realized" claim is OR and isn't in and of itself sufficient reason to delete an article. As for claims that there isn't enough information to warrant a separate article, I have edited a number of Buenos Aires Underground related articles at great length and seen many sources referring to Line G. Off the top of my head, information which should be added to this article includes:

- When a Chinese company offered USD 1.4 billion a few years ago to finance and construct the line in return for operating concessions. This was turned down because of concerns with the turnkey tender.

- A most recent expansion plan included Line G with plans to reroute it through the centre of the city instead of terminating at Retiro.

- This was actually one of the first planned lines back in the 1930s, but the company opted to construct Line D instead. As such, it has always remained a high priority in expansion plans and all sources indicate it will be the next line to be built after Line F.

Given all this, the best solution would be to expand and update the article. There's plenty of content to add here without cluttering the Buenos Aires Underground Article and the project has significant noteriety as an important part of the network's expansion, as would any article about an important infrastructure project for an important city. This makes the most sense as per WP:SPINOFF. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 01:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per SegataSanshiro1. Expansion seems reasonable given the listed points; if not, merging to the Buenos Aires Underground page and leaving a redirect makes sense. = paul2520 (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or "Weak Keep", I guess, because this AFD has been open for a while, and on not very well informed reasoning that it sounds major, it sounds like a substantial proposal, and my view that we can cover a major transportation proposal even if it is delayed and/or might not happen. The current article has just two sources, from 2011 and 2015, the latter one not being dated in the article, which I will fix now. User:SegataSanshiro1, could you possibly please list here, and/or add to the article, what other sources you have? --Doncram (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, they're all in Spanish, but these refer to some of the history of the Line, the canceled Chinese financing and the current re-routed project, with EnElSubte having some pretty in-depth info:

Part 1 Part 2 - overview and history of the line up to the Chinese investment.

[1] - details on the proposed financing from China Railway Engineering Corporation.

[2] [3] [4] [5] - more on that proposed deal.

[6] - Copy of Law 670, which established the construction of lines F, G and I.

[7] [8] - reasons why CREC agreement didn't go forward.

[9] - PETERS plan, which established a new proposed route for the Line. It also has a lot of other useful information about the projected number of passengers, etc.

More information on the early history can be found easily with a bit of time, such as why Line D was built instead. At the moment, the Underground is in a process of finding a new concessionaire to begin next year, with the Paris Metro, London Underground and Berlin U-Bahn operators among the bidders. Line F is likely to move forward as a Public–private partnership, so there will be information coming out in the future on if Line G will also go forward with the new operator or not. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I remembered that a long time ago I was working on an article for CHADOPyF in my sandbox [10] and this makes reference to the fact that the company had planned this line as Line 3 in the 1930s. There's a nice image there which could potentially be used in this article as well if it's expanded. I could probably find more sources about that part of the Line's history, though I remember there being quite a lot in the PETERS source about the history following that. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources in the article already demonstrate sufficient notability, and the ones in this discussion only reinforce that. The article could be expanded, but the current state of he article is not a reason to delete. oknazevad (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2018 (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.