Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Perth railway 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. Michig (talk) 06:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

South Perth railway station[edit]

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

Railway station proposed in 2009, but never any firm plans to build, can find no references post 2013. Total25 (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Probably an old paper lying in the drawer of someone's office by now. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Ack! Ack! Pasta bomb! (talk) 02:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The lack of a station at South Perth has been a political issue ever since they built the line, and as a proposal it's definitely something that has coverage in reliable sources, and probably meets WP:GNG if anyone could be bothered digging through newspaper archives. However, I'm dubious on whether the topic is encyclopedic, and someone seeing it with its own article might assume it had progressed further than it had. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral verging on Support of delete - if sufficient evidence of the paper trail - newspaper refs could show the proposal and the deferment in a number of good substantial references - it verges on passable (in the evidence of the issues or people involved in proposal, and the evidence of deferment) - in its current state, and if it was to stay that way - then I can agree with the Delete proposal satusuro 10:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete whilst there has been some coverage, the fact there is still no commitment to build makes me lean to delete. LibStar (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article about something that atm is unlikely to eventuate. Transasia07 (talk) 02:47, 1 May 2015 (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.