Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AirTrain LaGuardia


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

AirTrain LaGuardia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Violates WP:CRYSTAL. Article is about a proposed rail line that was briefly mentioned by news outlets earlier this year, but otherwise may not even be built or make it to the planning stage. – Dream out loud (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - The AirTrain LaGuardia project was announced as a plan, not an idea, by the Governor, who said that the state has the cash to fund the project according to the lengthy NY Daily News article referenced (hardly a "brief mention"). Other sources with extensive coverage are cited in our article, and there has been subsequent stories as well e.g. http://observer.com/2015/02/transit-experts-question-cuomos-450-million-price-tag-for-laguardia-airtrain/.  The idea of a rail link to this airport has a long history as well, e.g. http://gothamist.com/2014/02/06/dream_direct_rail_service_to_la_gua.php citing a plan from 2003. LGA has ranked in the top 30 airports of the world 2006-2013, so major proposals regarding it are notable. Is there a chance AirTrain LaGuardia may never be built? Of course there is, but the resulting controversy would still be a notable subject for a Wikipedia article, much like New York City's long delayed Second Avenue Subway.--agr (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is another feature article in the New York Times from March 11: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/nyregion/tracing-the-route-of-a-proposed-airtrain-to-la-guardia-airport.html?_r=0 --agr (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is an article about a well-verified proposal, like the Lower Manhattan – Jamaica / JFK Transportation Project, which doesn't fail WP:CRYSTAL. It is well-referenced and may be of note to other readers. Let's not delete it prematurely. Epic Genius (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC) (Modified. Epic Genius (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC))
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 12:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 12:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep – Verified proposal that passes WP:N. Source examples:, , , , . N ORTH A MERICA 1000 12:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge with air train since it was planed but never carried out and does not exist. Who knows the T train or the N,Q,7 lines may be extended to La Guardia airport in the future?  Merge since the ariticle is too small but relevant to the Airtrain idea.Doorknob747 (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Your merge target, AirTrain, is a disambiguation page. There are 5 other articles besides this one listed.--agr (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * comment, then merge with AirTrain new york city or AirTrain JFK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doorknob747 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * commentLaGuardia Airport makes the most sense for a merge. – Dream out loud (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * commentThen there is a problem with that, since it would be deleted, because, it is not part of laguardia airport and never as. And there was no news of that it will definitely be 100%  part of it in the future, so technically, it can not support it self their, and would ultimately be deleted.  If, there is no place to merge this article, then I think the article and its contents should be deleted and forgotten about.  Doorknob747 (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - It's been a while since I've read WP:CRYSTAL closely and after careful review I don't see how WP:CRYSTAL applies. That "NOT" page is about "unverified speculation", not heavily verified plans or proposals.  There is nothing in WP:CRYSTAL that bans articles about planned or proposed projects that are the subject of in-depth independent coverage.--Oakshade (talk) 05:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as analogizing to WP:HAMMER. This is in the Executive budget, which most likely will pass in 4-5 weeks. Bearian (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Times has posted details about the route, a budget plan has been shaped in the past 24 hours, and the final budget should be passed in the next 24 hours. Bearian (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.