Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Langley City Centre 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 Expo Line (SkyTrain)#Surrey–Langley extension. This closure only concerns the primary article. You can't just list articles in a nomination statement, they must be tagged as being part of this AFD deletion discussion and the article creators notified which did not occur. If you want an outcome for them, they must be renominated in a separate AFD and handled appropriately. Please review WP:AFD and follow the instructions for nominating multiple articles, precisely. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Langley City Centre station

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Major construction for these planned stations has not started yet (as per the source given at https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/surrey-langley-skytrain-expo-line-station-names) and will not for several months; this is classic WP:CRYSTAL—this and related stubs should be deleted until shovels are in the ground. It's also arguable that the unbuilt stations are notable in and of themselves at this point. Joeyconnick (talk) 06:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Joeyconnick (talk) 06:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 09:11, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This isn't a CRYSTALBALL issue at all - the station designs and construction timeline have been announced, so there's plenty of verifiable information. The real question is notability - is there sufficient coverage yet of each station individually? If not, they should redirect to Expo Line (SkyTrain)#Surrey–Langley extension. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 10:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I much prefer the idea of an article for a complete line or route, until such times as enough material has occurred about an individual station to merit an individual article. But I appreciate I'm going against the grain on this. The transport community seems to want individual articles even if all that can be said is that the station or stop belongs to route X and is found between the preceding station and the next one. My preference would be to amalgamate all this lot into one route article, but it ain't going to happen. Elemimele (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Expo Line – As these stations will begin construction soon and have finalized plans and names, it's very unlikely that there will be substantial changes that violate WP:CRYSTAL. That said, the current amount of available information can easily be covered in a table on the Expo Line article until more design details emerge. Sounder Bruce 05:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note only the first listed article has been tagged for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Expo Line (SkyTrain)#Surrey–Langley extension (which at present does not include even a plain list of stations on the extension) or a spinout article about the extension. There is no WP:CRYSTAL or other verifiability issue here. The issue is solely about the depth of available coverage, and while at present there isn't enough to sustain individual articles there absolutely is enough to justify inclusion on a broader article. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would like to hope that this AfD request isn't classic WP:BADFAITH. Why is it that this was okay? I thought at the time that an infill station article should require "shovels in ground" but there was no opposition. Since the initial argument is not valid, is it possible that the reasoning could be something petty as being upset at "Surrey (somehow, for some reason) getting a multi-million dollar transit project they 1000% do not deserve"?^[1] —Northwest (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow... that's a pretty bad-faith assumption right there. Capstan should have required shovels in the ground and if I didn't push for that, I apologize. But I didn't create that article. If I actively resisted its deletion (I don't recall doing so, but it's possible I've forgotten), then I would say my views have evolved and I would be happy to support the deletion of similar over-early articles in the future, no matter what transit project they're a part of.

These station articles are WP:CRYSTAL in that we don't know if these stations will be built and it would be reasonable to wait until the-shovels-in-the-ground point for the articles to be created/present in mainspace. There are more than 1 example of Canadian transit projects with "finalized plans and names" where they were cancelled even after the shovels point, the classic being the original Eglinton West line.

As to the clear accusation I am singling out these stations because I very much oppose this extension and the ridiculous politics that led to its current form, that's not the case. I actually would love to have all the Line 5 Eglinton stop articles deleted too but I haven't ever proposed that because they've been around for so long and railfan Wikipedia editors would no doubt strenuously object. In about 6 years of active editing here, I've learned to pick my battles and that's not a hill worth dying on for me. I generally do take a pretty conservative view of rushing to create articles; I bothered to propose these station articles for deletion because their creation was so new when I encountered them... and so clearly rushed based on one press cycle. As others have mentioned, it would suffice to list the station names in the Expo Line article until a) their major construction has begun and b) there are more sources (i.e. press coverage) to flesh out separate articles. Joeyconnick (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Would like to agree that it seems like a bad faith deletion request! Deathying (talk) 08:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect articles to Expo Line (SkyTrain)#Surrey–Langley extension – Since the station names are (almost certainly) finalized, keeping the existing articles seems more appropriate than deleting them. However, I'm in favour of redirecting the listed articles to the Expo Line article which now has a summary table in the extension section, at least while the station designs are not finalized. TROPtastic (talk) 09:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Chan, Kenneth (June 17, 2022). "City of Surrey approves Fleetwood Plan of adding up to 100,000 more residents near future SkyTrain". Daily Hive. Retrieved December 6, 2023.

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.

[1] Chan, Kenneth (June 17, 2022). "City of Surrey approves Fleetwood Plan of adding up to 100,000 more residents near future SkyTrain". Daily Hive. Retrieved December 6, 2023.

[1]