Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opera House metro 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 speedy keep per WP:CSK#3 as an erroneous nomination. The project not being finished yet is not a valid reason for deletion. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opera House metro 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)

This is a speculative article about a place that doesn't exist yet. SparklingSnail (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Vietnam. Skynxnex (talk) 22:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The place evidently does exist given there is a picture of it in the article. And so no proper rationale has been put forward here. NemesisAT (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NemesisAT. It appears a significant number of seemingly reliable sources confirm that the station exists, just not complete, with on-going news about estimates of when it will be opened to the public. Even if, at this point, the line never operates, it's still likely to be notable given the time and cost spent on the project. Furthermore, many incomplete subway/metro stations have articles since they exist and are notable based on sustained coverage. I've added a more recent source with more details of estimated timeline. Skynxnex (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly exists, and well-documented. Not speculative whatsoever. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Rationale given by rationale is clearly false, even at time of nomination the title of the first source describes the station as a thing that exists. The other sources also show WP:GNG is met. Jumpytoo Talk 05:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep (per WP:SK point 3) per all above. Reporting reliably sourced speculation by others does not make an article speculative, nor is there any prohibition on articles about things that are under construction. Thryduulf (talk) 09:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.