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 KEEP. postdlf (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ordsall Chord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The subject of this article does not appear to meet the general notability guideline and is for a proposed short rail line which is WP:CRYSTAL. Even the name of the proposed line is Crystal Ball. The sources listed to support this article appear to be numerous, but actually fail to demonstrate notability because they are not independent reliable sources and/or do not provide significant coverage of the topic. Onthegogo (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Many users are under the mistaken impression that WP:CRYSTAL bans any topic that is proposed or planned. It bans "unverifiable speculation" of topic, not very verified proposals that have received very significant coverage as this topic has. The link between Manchester Piccadilly station and Manchester Victoria station has been bandied about for decades. This proposed link, even under this rather new name, easily passes WP:GNG. [1][2][3]--Oakshade (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this was extensively discussed at WT:UKRAIL#Ordsall Chord (WP informed). There is ample evidence of coverage over a number of years, thus meeting GNG. Mjroots (talk) 08:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Oakshade and Mjroots. There are discussions about this in reliable sources going back to the 1970s, so there is no failure of WP:V not WP:CRYSTAL. Thryduulf (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- per Oakshade and Mjroots. WP is doomed if the references for this are not considered reliable -- surely Hansard must be one of the most reliable sources possible? Do we discount newspaper and periodical coverage? For its size, this is one of the most-referenced articles in the wiki. As for the name, this can be corrected if it changes in the future: High Speed 1 is, or was, known by 3 different names. -- EdJogg (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:CRYSTAL applies to speculation that the subject of the article will become notable later. In this case, there is already enough coverage in the media for this to be notable. In the event that this project gets cancelled at this late stage, it will remain a notable cancelled rail project (and it is quite normal for cancelled projects to be on WP). Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Just because it doesn't exist yet does not mean it fails WP:CRYSTAL, which applies only to rumours and unsourced speculation. With references spanning over 30 years, offering coverage of anything up to 1,000 words a time and including such sources as the Financial Times, BBC News, Hansard, The Independent, RAIL (magazine) and Manchester Evening News among others, there is no way this fails WP:GNG, however you choose to interpret it. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well referenced, been in the news. A topic that people will want to look up. As far as I know, funding has been given to build it, so it has moved beyond something that is merely proposed into something which is almost certain to happen, so that would rule out WP:CRYSTAL as a reason to delete it as that states "1.Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.". So it doesn't really count as speculative. Even if it doesn't happen, the proposals for it are worthy of an article. G-13114 (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Well referenced and relevant. Scillystuff (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This looks kinda WP:SNOWy, but if (as seems extremely unlikely) deleted, the content should be preserved in some form so as to form the basis of a "History of rail transport in Manchester" or equivalent. The project has been on the go, under varying governments, for at least 33 years. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2011 (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.