Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harrison MRT 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 delete. Jenks24 (talk) 12:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison MRT Station[edit]

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

Lone source inaccessible, no reliable sources. -Windows72106 (talk) 06:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the other pages for the same reason (stations part of a supposedly planned extension to the MRT-3 but with no reliable sources) as pointed out by RioHondo:

- Windows72106 (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Windows72106 (talk) 07:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Are train stations inherently notable? Several stations around the world, even relatively minor ones, seem to have articles. Is there a notability guideline for stations somewhere? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with this article is that it describes a station that does not (yet) exist and there are no other sources stating that it would be constructed. Sorry if this was not clear from the initial reason. - Windows72106 (talk) 09:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, stations are generally considered to be inherently notable, no matter what their size. But as the nom says, this station doesn't even exist yet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Derail. Normally I would say that this would be notable. It turns out that it doesn't exist (after all, the MRT ends at Taft, not at F.B. Harrison). No reliable sources either. No wonder I haven't heard of this one before (never saw anything in the newspapers about this station, and I read The Philippine Star everyday). And the fact that there isn't any reliable coverage (other than the one in the article, which is dead) is merely the final nail in the coffin. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is invalid as I noted in the talk page. May i also nominate these succeeding stations of the imaginary MRT3 line extension for deletion: Roxas Boulevard MRT Station, Macapagal MRT Station and Diokno MRT Station? Thanks. --RioHondo (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - I haven't found any sources and it is possible that any may be Tagalog or any of the other Filipino languages. Additionally, the article cites the status as "proposed" but there isn't an exact date of the proposition or the estimated establishment. SwisterTwister talk 00:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no evidence of a Blue Line (or Yellow Line, depending on which color system you're following)/MRT-3 extension towards the SM Mall of Asia, and the current engineering situation involving the Taft Avenue Link which links the LRT and MRT, where the latter is at grade, will prevent the realization of such a link for the foreseeable future. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 19:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Worldwide there are masses of proposed infrastructure developments put forward for public (or other) funding. It would be legitimate to have a single article on the whole project (such as the extesion project), but individual stations fail WP:CRYSTAL. The article speaks of 2010 in the future. Unless some one can provide evidcne that the project is proceeding, the article should be deleted. My view is that until the project is authorised and funded it is a mere pipedream. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:30, 19 October 2012 (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.