Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woolloongabba 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 redirect to BaT Tunnel. (non-admin closure) — Yash! ^(Y) 03:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Woolloongabba railway station[edit]

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

Proposed railway station that was to have been built as part of the now cancelled BaT Tunnel project. Coomera81 (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this crystal ball has cracked.--Rpclod (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Its not happening and so doesn't deserve an article. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note*: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to BaT Tunnel: this is a potential search term, and readers should be directed somewhere if they enter it. Nick-D (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BaT Tunnel without prejudice. Both parties' previous proposals for a cross river rail project involved a station at Woolloongabba, and the Palaszczuk government has made it clear that they intend to build some form of cross river rail project. If, when the details of that emerge, the station is retained, this should be immediately reverted to its current status. If not, it should stay redirected. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect without prejudice per The Drover's Wife. Mjroots (talk) 09:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BaT Tunnel - at some point I expect a station will be built in the area, and for now it's a plausible redirect. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete and Redirect to BaT Tunnel. Crystal ball may lean the argument towards deletion, however the station may be a plausible search term as it may eventually be built in the area in the future. Thus a delete/redirect case in my opinion. Should the station be approved (again) and eventually built, it can be recreated without the crystal ball history. Coastie43 (talk) 03:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This doesn't make any sense. If it appears on the third version of this proposal, just as it did on the first and second, the current content of the article will be absolutely relevant as its history. If it doesn't, it'll stay redirected and we won't be having this discussion again. But intentionally deleting the history of something that has a realistic chance of being useful again is pointless. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - My argument was based on applying WP:CRYSTALBALL towards both this & the George Street station. With both proposed stations being cancelled, and the subsequent state government looking for a different proposal, there is a good chance that both stations in its current form will not be the same under the newer proposal (especially with the bus tunnel component increasingly likely to be dumped, or potential relocations of the proposed stations). The few sentences from both articles (inc references) describing the proposed components of both stations can easily be merged in the BaT Tunnel article, with the separate articles then deleted & redirected to the BaT Tunnel article. Edit: Seems that both articles are already covered in the main article under the 2013 Plan section, leaving no information to merge and thus my initial opinion of deleting both articles & redirecting to the BaT project article still currently stands. If both stations are proposed again and subsequently approved, then recreating the article from a redirect is plausible. Coastie43 (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC) ; edited 08:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect not notable for an article atm, although may be in the future. Transasia07 (talk) 02:50, 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.