Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burgess Park tube 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 Bakerloo line extension to Camberwell. (non-admin closure) czar ⨹   19:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Burgess Park tube station

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. Entirely speculative; none of the sources indicate that construction of this station (or even of this route) has been formally authorised; the second and third show that it is still at the consultation stage. Only the first (which is clearly copied from this Wikipedia article) and fourth (which is a diagram of uncertain provenance, without supporting text) actually mentions Burgess Park. Red rose64 (talk) 11:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk to me  12:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk to me  12:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL "and could be opened by 2030" pretty much sums it up.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * redirect and merge or simply rename to Bakerloo line extension. The project for the extension is notable, even at the present moment, but plans for a possible station (which is only part of 2/3 of the option plans) are not. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you mean Bakerloo line extension to Camberwell? -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would do nicely. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Bakerloo line extension to Camberwell.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 03:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect, per Andy Dingley and others, with merger of material and with thanks to User:Suffolk82 for adding the material and sources. Note that per Suffolk82's contributions, they are a new editor.  We ought to be more explicit in AFDs not to harsh on new contributors, including not deleting any very large part of their contributions unnecessarily.  Redirect with merger is not deleting;  the record of contribution remains in edit history, and the material and sources are used in the target article. -- do  ncr  am  00:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect per all above. On another note, how can a train coming from Elephant & Castle be going "towards Elephant & Castle"? --Oakshade (talk) 07:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's down to how and its subtemplate  work - it's hardcoded into Template:S-line/LUL right/Bakerloo. If the line does get extended, we amend that last subtemplate and all the stations on the line automatically get updated for the new southern terminus. But until that happens, we leave it alone. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In the unlikely event this article is kept, there should be a customized template to reflect the proposed reality. --Oakshade (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There will be, it will be used something like those at Kennington tube station (the Northern line extension to Battersea is not merely a consultation, but approved and just awaits funding). But at this stage, no southern terminus for a possible Bakerloo line extension has been settled, so it is misleading to give anything other than the present terminus at the Elephant. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect per above, without prejudice to recreation as an article iff the station gets the go-ahead. Mjroots (talk)
 * 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.