Deletion of Ordsall Chord

Comment: This looks kinda y, 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: Many users are under the mistaken impression that  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 . http://www.propertyweek.com/news/co-op-celebrates-manchester-victoria-piccadilly-link/5015568.articlehttp://www.propertyweek.com/news/co-op-celebrates-manchester-victoria-piccadilly-link/5015568.articlehttp://www.insidermedia.com/insider/yorkshire/49868-botham-hails-85m-ordsall-chord-decision
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:GNG)

Comment: per Oakshade and Mjroots. There are discussions about this in reliable sources going back to the 1970s, so there is no failure of  not 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Just because it doesn't exist yet does not mean it fails , 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 , however you choose to interpret it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:GNG)

Comment: 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  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)