Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magsaysay Boulevard 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 no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Magsaysay Boulevard station[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)

Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but does not meet WP:GNG or WP:STATION currently. Could be redirected to the line, but editor insists on creating article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The station merits an article similar to how other previously existing station articles from Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 4, Metro Manila Subway Line 9, Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 7, etc. is. The station details, elevation, platform structure, and nearby locale is even indicated in the source by METI. Therefore topic merits its own article. I shall revert redirects for the mean time as discussions on similar articles are on-going. Korean Rail Fan 15:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This editor is the article creator. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Delete as this doesn't actually exist yet and it has been known for proposed stations to be delayed or never happen at all. Even if/when it is constructed, it shouldn't be an automatic article, though seldom are articles of actual railway stations deleted. I don't see the harm in waiting and then creating an article once it's established. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If applying such argument, many other existing station articles prior to the creation of this such as Taytay station, NAIA Terminal 3 station, Salitran station, Pier 4 station, etc as well as other country station article stubs shall also be deleted as these are just planned stations. Yet these have their own article and if delete prevails, these articles too need to be deleted as their are "Just plans" for now. So given that these haven't been officially cancelled and using those examples (which has been reviewed and accepted already despite some lacking sources and again having that same "planned" status), these stations merit a keep. Korean Rail Fan 17:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to create an AfD for those other stations. I am submitting an opinion on the AfD in question. FWIW, I don't think any station "planned" should have an article until or near completion, unless it's a significant interchange of some sort with alot of news coverage, planning information etc. I happen to accept the rationale set out by the nominator of this AfD - sorry if you disagree with that. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per WP:NOTPAPER. These articles are verifiable and passes WP:GNG being parts of multi-billion public infrastrucure projects. Their proposed locations and other specifications are definitely noteworthy to the riding public, and merit their own separate articles more than any Category:Proposed skyscrapers that benefit only their owners or developers IMO.--RioHondo (talk) 09:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, actually notability is not inherited, and being part of a project which is notable does not make these stations notable.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Publicly funded infrastructure and transportation projects of this size, even proposals for such and even stubs for such, are inherently and "generally notable" as explained in WP:PUBTRAN and WP:RAILSTATION. Anything for the good of the public should be inherently notable, as opposed to a lot of the private moneymaking proposal articles out there, proposed hotels, proposed condominiums, you get my drift.--RioHondo (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, so based on what the "keepers" above are stating, some/most of the "stations" on the Light rail in Canberra will need their own wikiarticles (personally i wouldnt mind just a sentence or two on the relevant suburb articles, with a possible expansion of the LRC article), and Newcastle Light Rail (oh look! the stations are incorporated in the NLR article, what are wikiozeditors thinking:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF?--RioHondo (talk) 06:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this no doubt is needed and eventually will be built, but not under the chaos of this incumbent regime, currently at a war of words with the Roman Catholic Church and the earthquakes this week possibly eating up funds. If we must, please merge back to Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 4. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not how the project works especially that it is a Public-Private Partnership which does not concern itself of any natural calamity that does not affect its right of way. The project will be mostly private funded with minimal government participation which cannot be reallocated to emergency funds as this is appropriated already in an annual budget stipulated under a law called "General Appropriations Act of 20xx" annually. Also the political climate now is more conducive for big-ticket infrastructure projects with the Build-Build-Build program which aims to accelerate infrastructure spending through government funds, loans, and PPPs.So these arguments of natural calamity and possible reappropriation of funding is invalid. Korean Rail Fan 03:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Comment It's a chaotic political scene but is confined to the PR war and media. Actually construction has accelererated to its highest speed in recent decades with the Dutertenomics. 3-4 rail projects are now seeing completion within the presidents term including the Manila Subway and MRT7. It has nothing to do with whatever alarmist columns you read in the MSM. Especially not the Catholic church which isnt involved in either the construction or in government. Leave the politics out of these articles pls. :)--RioHondo (talk) 06:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:56, 26 April 2019 (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.