Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Link, Brisbane

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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Link, Brisbane[edit]

Seems to not merit an article yet due to WP:CRYSTAL. This is a proposed project, one that has not yet been approved. If it gets approved and is notable itself, such as Boston's Big Dig construction project, then it can be given an article at a later time. Firestorm (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Firestorm (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 00:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. WWGB (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Once again WP:CRYSTAL is being construed to mean it somehow bans any proposed topic. It doesn't. It's to discourage completely un-sourced speculation of topics. If a proposed topic passes WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CRYSTAL doesn't negate that. Even proposals that have failed can pass WP:NOTABILITY. Even the in-depth government records cited in the article indicate passing WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 03:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Oakshade. WP:CRYSTAL applies to things that will presumably happen in the future, but about which we don't know anything useful because it's so far away. The examples given include an election dozens of years in the future. This is clearly not the same category as a major motorway in the advanced planning stages (with multiple sources giving specific details) with construction scheduled to begin this year. In fact, the Northern Link falls under 'notable and almost certain to take place [with] preparation ... already in progress', which CRYSTAL specifically says is an allowable category of article. Nasica (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given that the tunnel is "currently in the planning stage" it is certainly not "almost certain". WWGB (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep -- The proposal appears to be under serious investigation, and not a mere pipedream. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. As a resident in the area I know the project well, and while it's not "locked in", it's not in the "pipe dream" category either. It will probably go ahead, and given the extensive press coverage here, I think it's probably worth an article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:22, 12 January 2009 (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.