Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mountain House Community 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 Valley Link. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain House Community station

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

)

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

This proposed commuter train station does not pass

WP:TOOSOON. I propose to redirect this page to Valley Link until there is sufficient SIGCOV in reliable sources to warrant a standalone page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Stations, and California. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nomination. Appears to be too soon for a standalone article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are already lots of references, and their number and length will grow as designs are finalized and coverage of the project and individual stations continues. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously didn't read them as none of the independent sources say more than a sentence or two about the station, and you're making a very bold assumption about a station not expected to open until near the end of the decade. Valley Link already exists. But why let facts get in the way of your personal feelings? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per
WP:FUTURE "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." According to the sources, "The Valley Link project has been awarded $25 million by the state.That funding will go toward Valley Link’s first phase — the 26-mile section from the Pleasanton BART station to the proposed Mountain House station. The overall project is expected to cost $3.6 billion." — Maile (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Regardless of how certain the
WP:SIGCOV test to be notable, and it doesn't -- it has passing references in sources focused on the whole system. It will someday, but until then, a redirect is appropriate. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect. Fails NOT and GNG. The above keeps have entirely missed the part of FUTURE that says future events should be included only if the event is notable (bolding mine); there is no IRS SIGCOV of this event, so it emphatically fails that requirement. JoelleJay (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the station itself currently fails
WP:GNG, but is a possible redirect and has the possibility to be restored in the future if it receives secondary coverage. The problem with the keep !votes: the coverage isn't about the station but rather about the proposed network, and there's no certainty the station will be notable in the future. A redirect is fine for now. SportingFlyer T·C 05:58, 3 June 2024 (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.