Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wirral Waters


 * 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   speedy keep. It met WP:N andWP:RS before the nom. (non-admin closure) treelo  radda  19:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Wirral Waters

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Advert for a development project. WP is not a crystal ball. Tagged for speedy delete a minute after creation. Various tags, spam, unnotable etc. PROD removed. Operating (talk) 01:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - this project has generated broad ranging publicity and controversy with reliable sources that meet WP:N. This is not an advert, but a sourced factual account. The proposed status does not make this crystalballism - it is already notable and any (unlikely) cancellation of such a huge project would generate vastly more controversy.TerriersFan (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment There seems to be sufficient independent coverage to establish notability and future infrastructure projects are welcome on WP, if they meet notability guidelines, are they not? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Confirmed projects are welcomed. This project is not confirmed and may never get past the planning stage. Operating (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - irrelevant - it is notable whatever happens - see WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. No. If the project is cancelled the page becomes completely unnotable. Operating (talk) 02:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - not so, it is notable now as proposed major infrastructure project; if cancelled it will become a notable controversy; notability doesn't expire. TerriersFan (talk) 03:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I know Other Crap Exists is not an argument, but if you go to Category:Future infrastructure you'll see that there are subcats for planned or simply proposed projects. Seems to me a project of the scope of Wirral Waters is equally notable, even if it may never get built, if it has reliable independent sources, which it does. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. All of those projects have planning permission or have government backing. Operating (talk) 02:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - can you source that statement? Many are planned commercial projects - the first I looked at was Saudi Landbridge Project is a case in point. TerriersFan (talk) 03:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The Saudi Bridge project is government supported, read the references. Wirral Waters is not. And indeed the government may block Wirral Waters. You're supporting a proposal, not a project. Operating (talk) 10:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Important and controversial local project. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:CRYSTAL is designed to prevent the inclusion of unverifiable speculation about future events, and so doesn't really seem to apply here, as we have plenty of coverage in reliable sources to verify the key facts in the article and to demonstrate notability. As TerriersFan notes above, a project of this size will remain notable even if cancelled. Scog (talk) 11:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The nominator's point seems to be that if a future project is not government supported it cannot be notable, regardless of scale or an abundance of reliable sources. I see nothing in WP:N to support this sentiment. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2008 (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.