Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Maryland (Washington Metro)

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 redirect to Purple Line (Washington Metro) as preferable to deletion. lifebaka++ 18:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University of Maryland (Washington Metro)[edit]

Future station stub, some argue that WP:Crystal applies Dkendr (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Purple Line (Washington Metro). Until shovels hit the ground (and even that doesn't mean much given the 70-year history of the Second Avenue Subway), it seems very premature to have articles for individual station. Nfitz (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If planning is sufficiently advanced that land has been acquired for the project (and I am not sure about this), then keeping the article as a "future station" probably makes sense. --Eastmain (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge & Redirect Until ground is broken this article fails WP:CRYSTAL. Lots of proposed lines for lots of transit systems exist. Individual station articles is overkill on a proposed line. -Djsasso (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect I'm all in favor of having separate articles for planned stations, such as the Silver Line ones, but those plans are a lot more concrete than the Purple Line, which is still just a proposal at this point. According to The Washington Post last week [1], the Maryland Transit Administration is still studying "potential routes while comparing light rail and bus rapid transit options." Until it decides more specifically where these stations will be (if it still continues pursuing the Purple Line at all), I think it's best to hold off on individual articles. Dmp348 (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge Stubs always have the ability to grow, and therefore are not grounds for deletion or forced merging. Many future rail stations have a lot of coverage before they reach groundbreaking. Sebwite (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue with these ones are that they haven't even been approved yet. So they may never ground break. -Djsasso (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly merge per WP:CRYSTAL. A proposed station on a proposed line really is a bit too much. Its not too hard to recreate the article if it actually gets underway. Tavix (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While my own preference per WP:CRYSTAL (this is a proposed line, not one that has been officially put on the drawing board) would be to redirect, as I did a few days ago, User:Dkendr is the creator of the article, and has before now hotly maintained both in edit summaries and on talk pages that the article should be maintained, reverting redirects to it and similar articles. This strikes me, therefore, as a WP:POINT nomination, as with the two similar articles he created and AfDed today. RGTraynor 22:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Purple Line (Washington Metro). The proposed line itself clearly has sufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify an article, but there's no content here and no purpose for the article on the proposed station. --Stormie (talk) 12:35, 1 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.