Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lower North Shore Metro Extension: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:37, 25 July 2008

Delete - No sources or references. The metro line's existence is very questionable. Contents of the article are purely imaginary. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep will obviously be built this is cited and planned/under contruction metro lines are notable.^MY♥_INchile 19:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the line has never been officially announced nor noted in any news articles. The article contains imaginary station names that are not cited (although confusingly, it has a non-existent citation mark there). The line is not even under planning, hence it's existence is very questionable. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This line hasn't been approved, and I've never seen it even be seriously proposed. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some rail enthusiasts love to post an article on any proposal put forward, however nebulous. I would suggest there should be a guideline as to when such project can have an article. I would suggest that they need to be (1) funded and (2) authorised (or at least going through the authorisation process). That would mean that there is a reasonable prospect of their being completed. Until then it is mere WP:CRYSTAL. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this rail line is not mentioned in the provided references. The only ghits for this come back to Wikipedia. I'm willing to admit that there might be other sources for it, but I'm very skeptical. Will cheerfully change my mind if reliable references stating that this is being seriously proposed or considered are provided. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 *'''Delete''' per [[WP:CRYSTAL]]. This line hasn't been approved, and I've never seen it even be seriously proposed. [[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] ([[User talk:Nick Dowling|talk]]) 11:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' some rail enthusiasts love to post an article on any proposal put forward, however nebulous.  I would suggest there should be a guideline as to when such project can have an article.  I would suggest that they need to be (1) funded and (2) authorised (or at least going through the authorisation process).  That would mean that there is a reasonable prospect of their being completed.  Until then it is mere [[WP:CRYSTAL]].  [[User:Peterkingiron|Peterkingiron]] ([[User talk:Peterkingiron|talk]]) 13:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''', this rail line is not mentioned in the provided references.  The only ghits for this [http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en-GB&q=%22Lower+North+Shore+Metro+Extension%22&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 come back to Wikipedia].  I'm willing to admit that there might be other sources for it, but I'm very skeptical.  Will cheerfully change my mind if reliable references stating that this is being seriously proposed or considered are provided.  [[User:Lankiveil|Lankiveil]] <sup>([[User talk:Lankiveil|speak to me]])</sup> 11:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC).