Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SmartTrack

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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SmartTrack

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

It is obviously written by the John Tory campaign. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 21:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Municipal campaign planks do not need articles. - SimonP (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per point 1 under WP:CRYSTAL. Proposed future project this far in the future shouldn't be an article. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Campaign plank or not, and WP:CRYSTAL or not, don't forget that if it meets WP:GNG those things are irrelevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I accept the article is pro the proposal but couldn't that be solved by someone from the other side adding a criticism section.Regarding it being a proposed plan Wikipedia has articles on Chacoa channel bridge, devolved English parliament and the Transatlantic Tunnel which are also only proposals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.17.97 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to meet WP:GNG, regardless of whether the article ends up documenting a failed proposal. CRYSTAL #1 seems to be talking much more about planned things for planned dates, and also states that: A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified. As an exception, even highly speculative articles about events that may or may not occur far in the future might be appropriate, where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient. For example, Ultimate fate of the universe is an acceptable topic. Boleyn (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it doesn't matter really whether he wins or not, it matters if it meets WP:SIGCOV/WP:GNG or not. - Epson291 (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Allow only if there is political consensus and a vote in favour of the proposal by one or more elected bodies. That is not yet the case and might never be. - TheTrolleyPole (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if every proposal for a transit system, which no doubt gets news coverage locally, were given an article we could rename the site RapidTransitpedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and having articles on every single rapid transit proposal, successful or not, even if they are just lines on a map, yet reported by mainstream media, very much constitute cruft. Therefore, I agree with Carlos Suarez. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Philg88 ^♦talk 06:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Carlos's reason. Even if this gets voted on and wins, if doesn't need an article until it is under construction.Frmorrison (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - It does appear to be written by the Tory campaign but it has gotten significant coverage by the news. At the very least, it should be rewritten to comply with NPOV rules. Aerospeed (Talk) 20:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just a campaign promise that may or may not actually happen. The appropriate time for an article will be if Tory wins, and if this is approved and funded. Not before. Maybe worth a mention at John_Tory#2014_mayoral_campaign. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per wp:crystal and wp:promo. Dcfc1988 (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lankiveil has it exactly correct: the time for an article about this will be if and when it actually gets approved and funded and a date for shovel hitting ground is actually announced, not when it's merely a campaign proposal that may or may not ever actually happen. And Carlossuarez has it exactly right too: if we kept an article about every single new rapid transit proposal that any politician ever put forward, in an election campaign or otherwise, we'd probably break the internet. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when it actually gets off the ground as a real thing. We're an encyclopedia, not a repository of municipal election campaign literature. Bearcat (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2014 (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.