Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cambridge South railway station (2nd nomination)

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 merge to Transport in Cambridge. Opinion is scattered, but no policy-based arguments have been put forth for keeping, so this seems like a good compromise. If whoever does the merge feels that East West Rail Link would be a better merge target, go for it. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge South railway station

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

Previously deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cambridge South railway station (I did consider WP:CSD#G4 but am giving the benefit of a discussion); history of previous article is at Special:Undelete/Addenbrooke's railway station. I can find no evidence that construction (or even funding) is any more likely than it was eleven months ago. Indeed, an edit earlier today indicates that an application for funding has been declined. Wikipedia does not deal in what might happen, or what people want to happen - but in what has happened, or in some cases what will definitely and verifiably happen. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems that it's more likely and has been backed and mentioned in documents as well as Transport Secutary being a supporter of it. MainLine45 (talk) 08:18 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Delete Nothing substantial has changed since the previous AfD. It may be likely that the station is eventually built, but it's too soon to have an article on it. The Cambridge North railway station article was created in 2009 but I'd argue it should not have been created until 2012 when confirmed by the government. --09:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question What is the standard of notability for a subway (Underground) or light rail station without press coverage? I saw a set of new articles with nothing but location, route, and timetable information. Rhadow (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is neither underground nor light rail. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Transport in Cambridge under the "rail" section. See no harm in that if there are sources about the proposals. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  11:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per filelakeshoe. I see no reason to delete this completely if it is really been reported on as a proposed expansion. Another potential merge target would probably be East_West_Rail_Link#Other_proposals. Regards So Why 12:04, 8 September 2017 (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.