Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Trunk Terminal Project (Portland, Maine)

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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Trunk Terminal Project (Portland, Maine)

A lovely looking article, but I can't find any independent sources. "The official announcement for the proposal is expected to be made in the late Spring of 2009, most likely between the months of April and June." So the proposal has yet to be announced. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting... I can't find much as well, I did manage to find an article on the Ocean Gateway website, [1], talking about rail service from Grand Trunk Station on commercial street. Not sure why someone would create this page so soon if they had nothing to back it up.--Bubblecuffer (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I live in the area, don't know about you, I'll see if I can find a copy of this Newsletter at the Portland Chamber of Commerce or something--Bubblecuffer (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess they're working on the proposal and wanted to share their hard work. It's a neat looking project. But it probably has to wait at least until it's announced. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How long until that happens? I can go to the Portland Public Library this week, they have everything you've never heard of. I would say we should wait at least until the creator of this page weighs in...--Bubblecuffer (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: "The official announcement for the proposal is expected to be made in the late Spring of 2009, most likely between the months of April and June." After wading through some AfD dregs, I have to say it pains me a bit to AfD this article. But it does seem rather premature for an article. Can you post on the creator's talk page and ask them to comment here? I notified them I think, but maybe they need encouragement. One of my concerns is that it's hard to balance an article made to promote the project if it hasn't been announced yet. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

My name is Chase and I have been involved in this article as you may have seen. I am just a student at SMCC, and I am not involved in the project directly but one of my friends fathers is. I have seen some of their proposals and decided to make a page for it, seeing that it may be a very notable project soon. I would really hate to see this article go, I have worked very hard on it (putting it in front of the occasional assignment, which may have been a bad choice), and I even interview Neal Dow for some information on the project. Is there any way this can be avoided, I can work my hardest to try and get just the facts out. Its hard for me to see the bias obviously, but as you can imagine who would create an article they weren't interested in?

We get upset at people with conflicts of interest, but let's not forget that someone passionate about their work or a project they love may simply be coming here, naming themself after something important in their life, and trying to contribute. A quote from User:ChildofMidnight (I like it)

I don't have an electronic copy of the Portland Development Newsletter, but I'm sure I can get a copy.

Can you please let me know before you delete this page? --GTTP2009 (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the conversation. The problem is that there are "rules" about what belongs and what doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. Your work will certainly not be lost. Even if it was deleted, deletions are not necessarily permanent and the content can still be accessed and provided to you. One option is for the article to be moved to your userspace, and/or recreated when the subject becomes notable. The problem is that the standard for article inclusion is substantial coverage from independent sources. Can you provide references showing substantial coverage for a yet to be announced proposal? Do you want to have the article userfied? It's your move. :) I'm flattered to be quoted! Who knew people read that stuff? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No significant coverage to date. Bongo matic 05:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Bongo -- Chase, you can't add stuff to an article that you get from an interview. It needs to have been published by a reliable source, reliable by Wikipedia standards. Please read WP:VERIFY and WP:RELIABLE. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As yes rules... Well if it must go can I at least take the first option

One option is for the article to be moved to your userspace

I would love to keep working on the article as thing progress, so when it meets wikipedia standards it will be a good article. How would I go about doing that? Also, I appreciate your help, I am sorry I have created this problem, I was just trying to add to the infinite wealth of knowledge... Keep me updated.--GTTP2009 (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable secondary/independent sources that verify the existence/seriousness of the proposal. Currently the page content is based on newsletter, personal interviews etc, which are not acceptable sources, and wikipedia is effectively hosting the homepage/promotional material for the project proposal. Fails WP:CRYSTAL too. Abecedare (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:58, 9 January 2009 (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.