Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cambridgeshire TIF bid


 * 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  merge. Consensus dictates that this does not meet notability requirements for a separate, stand-alone article. I've decided to redirect to Transport Innovation Fund. Further discussion can occur about where to merge verifiable material or if this is the most appropriate redirect target. Non-admin closure.  Jujutacular  T · C 09:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Cambridgeshire TIF bid‎
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Subject has not has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and so does not meet notability criteria. Dancarney (talk) 09:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  —Dancarney (talk) 09:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 *  Userfy . At the moment, we don't know if this will have any enduring notability. It won't if the bid fails, and we can't keep the article whilst we wait for the result due to WP:CRYSTAL. Even if the bid succeeds, I'm not sure there's enough long-term notability to justify an article on this. However, a lot of this information could be incorporated into the articles of the places affected. I don't see any harm in keeping this in userspace until we know what to do with this information. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's safe to say there's no long-term notability in this. But deletion is not necessary (and so should be avoided--see WP:BEFORE).  Simply merge a very trimmed version to Transport Innovation Fund, retaining the history under a redirect.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  15:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to Transport Innovation Fund. There is plenty room in the target page for a section on each of the projects, and that seems a good way forward. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect. Agree this is a better idea. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect. The long-term notability of this appears to have been settled in the negative as the government has replaced the TIF with the Urban Challenge Fund http://nds.coi.gov.uk/content/Detail.aspx?ReleaseID=411725&NewsAreaID=2. Rich257 (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge but to Cambridgeshire County Council. This is a funding bid by it, which may or may not be successful, so that the whole matter comes close to WP:CRYSTAL, though it does not prcisely fit that classification.  I would guess that every Transport Authority is making a similar bid.  The appropriate place for such material is on the Local Authority's own website.  The Cambs CC transport section should merely state that a TIF bid has been made, using an external link as reference.  Do not retain any redirect.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - sorry, but there is no substantive Cambridgeshire County Council article to merge it into! However, it doesn't seem a good idea, anyway, since Transport Innovation Fund deals with the topic and needs more content. WP:CRYSTAL is not relevant; the content is about the bid, which has been made. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. None of the articles sources are independent media, thus not meeting WP:N.-- Pink Bull  20:56, 17 March 2010 (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.