Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SE Tacoma/Johnson Creek


 * 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. Nakon 01:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

SE Tacoma/Johnson Creek

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Light rail stations are not notable until actually placed into use, which will not happen with this particular station until this September. Conifer (talk ) 23:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - I would like to see the policy basis for the claim, "light rail stations are not notable until actually placed into use" which would seem to be contrary to many other policies and guidelines. Proposed expansion of the New York City Subway, for example, and Planned high-speed rail by country are full of such proposals and plans. I know of no specific policy that differentiates between heavy and light rail, but I'm more than happy to be pointed in the right direction. Regardless, the article in question doesn't have any sources and that's what we should be focussing on. There's plenty of local coverage; anything beyond that?  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 08:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added some local news stuff but couldn't find anything beyond Oregon.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 08:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll amend that; I believe that specific proposed/under construction transit stations are often not notable until placed into service, because they tend to lack many sources other than the project itself. When they are actually operating, there is usually more reliable coverage compared to earlier construction/planning stages, where details are more fuzzy. Glancing through a list of transit projects, it seems that heavy rail/subway projects usually have independent articles for their stations, whereas light rail projects do not. I suspect this is less a function of the modal difference than because subways and heavy rail are more expensive and often more controversial, thus garnering significant news coverage. Conifer (talk ) 04:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand; makes sense. Logically, yes, that may well be the case, I just wasn't sure the policy basis. For the record, still haven't found any other sources.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 05:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep - If this station was simply proposed, then the nom might have some validity to their statement, but there is no such policy or guideline that forbids the articles about future stations, no less ones that are under construction and will definitely open such as this one. --Oakshade (talk) 06:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 01:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. Not all light rail stations are notable. Some are merged on their line's article. We can always recreate the article or request an undeletion if notability is proven after this stop opens. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Those guidelines are for "unverifiable speculation", not verified and confirmed as this topic is. Even the nom understands the station will open in September. --Oakshade (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 12:51, 11 February 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.