Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harringay (St Ann's Road) 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 delete. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Harringay (St Ann's Road) tube station

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested WP:PROD. Concern was: only two sources, neither reliable, notwithstanding which, neither source actually states that a station was seriously considered. There are now five sources, of which none are exactly reliable: one is a blog, one is either a book, paper or journal published by Hornsey Historical Society; and the third new one is a local newspaper, but there is neither the title of the article, the page, or a URL where the item may be viewed. We still have nothing that verifies that a station was definitely going to be built (compare e.g. North End tube station or Bushey Heath tube station) nor that it would have had this name. Red rose64 (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Piccadilly Line Extension - The Diamond Anniversary (1992) notes that there was, "a move to build an additional station at Harringay," and details the justifications against it (pages 8-9). The Piccadilly Tube (2007) also notes an early proposal for a station at St Anne's Lane (page 68). It is notable that while we have Category:Unbuilt London Underground stations, most of them appear to come under the 1902-1905 Central line extension which never got close to happening. In contrast, St Anne's was suggested for a line that did eventually get built. The proposal clearly existed at one point, and was serious enough that active justifications were formulated for not going ahead with it. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment:There is a section in Christian Barman's The Man Who Built London Transport: A Biography of Frank Pick where Barman discusses Pick's rejection of a station between Manor House and Turnpike Lane. The rejection was on functional and economic reasons. Barman does not mention a specific location proposed for a station (p. 94):


 * According to Eitan Karol's Charles Holden: Architect, when Pick commissioned Charles Holden in August 1929 to produce the designs for stations on the Piccadilly line's northern extension, only the ones we have now were on the list (p. 333). This indicates an outright refusal from Pick to even consider a station in this section as a matter of principle and shows that there was no design work carried out for it.
 * A review of reporting in The Times of the proposals for the Piccadilly tube extension north from Finsbury Park finds a report from 21 October 1929 (pg. 14; Issue 45339) discussing the urgent need for a bill to be submitted to parliament to meet the November deadline on railway bills. This includes a small map labelled "original scheme" showing station locations in Manor House, Turnpike Lane, Wood Green, Bounds Green and New Southgate, but with nothing between the first two. On 5 November, The Times reports the scheme as being an extension to Cockfosters (diverted to the more northerly route via Arnos Grove).
 * It certainly was not an approved station that was dropped later, which might have warranted an entry in the list of unopened stations. --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment This seems more suited to inclusion in the Picadilly Line article than as an article.Charles (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Can't find anything in reliable sources that actually verifies a station was going to be built with exactly this specific name, although as David says, the proposed extension is covered. In other words, this article is pure original research as it stands and we cannot have it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment If this article is retained I think the station should be added to the article List of former and unopened London Underground stations. I would also note there are comparable articles on proposed stations eg Heathfield Terrace tube station, which is worth considering when discussing its deletion. That said this article seems limited as it stands. Dunarc (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * All of the unbuilt stations on that list such as Heathfield Terrace actually had parliamentary approval for construction, although they were, for various reasons, not subsequently built. From the evidence, a station at St Ann's Road never even got to the stage of being considered by the UERL. If we were to include stations that were just requested or considered, we would need to add, literally, dozens of station sites. Many bills were submitted to parliament for construction or extension of tube lines with station locations identified and large numbers of these bills were withdrawn or failed to get approval. For example, the Piccadilly, City and North East London Railway, the Kearney High-Speed Tube, the Edgware Road and Victoria Railway, the New Cross & Waterloo Railway or the 1902 proposal to turn the Central London Railway into a loop line.--DavidCane (talk) 15:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Reflecting on this I think that what you say is valid. Looking at the other unbuilt/unopened stations which have article all clearly got much further than a vague proposal which all the evidence seems to point to this 'proposed station' being. On that basis delete seems reasonable and entirely appropriate. Dunarc (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment Merging and redirecting (presumably to the list of unopened stations) seems to me to be clearly superior to an outright deletion of this article. We should be looking actively for wp:ATD alternatives to deletion.  Leaving a redirect behind preserves the edit history in case more content becomes available.  And the Talk page would preserve a link to this learned AFD discussion, helping any future editor considering re-starting the article.  But I am not familiar enough with this to say whether this should simply be merged vs. kept outright. -- do  ncr  am  00:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The article's creator has something of a history in creating articles for railway stations and lines that never got off the drawing board (in some cases they never got on to the drawing board). At best, these are WP:CRYSTALballing; but some were wishful thinking on their part - if not outright WP:HOAXing. Their MO seems to be to look for mentions of consultations or feasibility studies, and treat them as if they were firm, fully-funded proposals. -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said above, all of the unopened stations on List of former and unopened London Underground stations were fully approved. There is no value in adding a speculative station to that list. It's a featured list and the sources provided for Harringay (St Ann's Road) tube station would not satisfy an FL review. The most that should be done is to add a piece into the article on the Piccadilly line about the calls from locals for a station between Manor Road and Turnpike Lane and why Frank Pick rejected these. --DavidCane (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nördic   Nightfury  22:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Not sure that this needs a second relisting, but, to be clear, my position is that this article should be deleted. It seems clear enough that this "station" was never proposed. --DavidCane (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per above discussion. Has been here long enough.Charles (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete echoing the arguments above, there seems to be little to no value of including information about a proposed yet nonexistent stop.Timtempleton (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.