Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pitt Street railway station, Sydney

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. the wub "?!" 12:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pitt Street railway station, Sydney[edit]

Delete as per other articles Past main AfD Pikablu0530 (talk) 04:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per consensus on similar articles. Reyk _YO! 04:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 04:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, unlike the other recently deleted proposed station articles, this one actually has some coverage in respectable sources. Its still up in the air if it'll actually happen, but I think there's enough useful material to justify an article for now. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discusion has been included in the list of transportation-related deletion discussions. Slambo (Speak) 12:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: What's the point to an article about a non-existent railway station on a non-existent railway line that has not even been approved yet? There's nothing notable about a station that doesn't exist and may not ever exist. At the very least, we should wait until the plans have been finalised and financed and construction has been given the go-ahead.--Lester 20:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a railway being planned might possibly be encycopaedic, but a station proposed on it should not be, at least until it is underconstruction. Many large Civil Engineering projects are proposed, but a great many of these are never constructed. If the article is right, no trains will run until 2020. Delete and Salt until 2018. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - on the basis of comments Lankivel above and in mind the long drawn out tradition of arguments at afds over other rail/train locations in either suburban or country contexts that have preceded this afd - or if it goes to delete - then at least any article about the proposed lie should include any salvageable refs and or info SatuSuro 06:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the station is more of a WP:CRYSTAL - there is no formal approval or any information that notes it's existence. In addition, in reply to SatuSuro's comment above, there is nothing salvageable in the article that could be kept (no sources or refs, minimal text, the page is a total mess). --Pikablu0530 (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - (Comment) The article actually says nothing. It has no useful content. There is already an article about the envisaged West Metro line. It's obvious that this article about an individual station on that envisaged line has not got enough content to warrant a separate article. I agree this article should be salted until something actually happens, at least until we know if the line will be built.--Lester 00:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 15:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete! How much more consensus is there to be reached? A nom and three deletes v. 2 weak keeps (I know we do not count but weigh - but the weak keep reasoning is mostly that it does not hurt to have the article - the sources provided by Lankiveil just state that there will be a railway station on Pitt Street). The article does not give any useful information (e.g. architecture, when to be built) not already included in the main article. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Article makes no claim of notability for this proposed train station. A proposed railway station could be notable if people protested it or something, but this is not the case here. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let them build it first -- then maybe an article. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to West Metro as is the practice for stations on proposed but not yet under construction railway lines. --Stormie (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - We are not even sure if the railway station will be named "Pitt Street" given that the station isn't even considered officially "proposed". So I'd suggest delete and salt until it is at least officially announced or confirmed to be constructed. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 03:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the references provided by Lankiveil are trivial mentions. PhilKnight (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Undeath (talk) 05:25, 19 August 2008 (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.