Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cinque Ports Light Railway


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Cinque Ports Light Railway

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A speculative article ("it is likely", "it is possible") about a light railway that never was built, where half of the short article is not about this scheme but about other railways. Suorced to a blog, an unrelated source, and primary sources. Prod removed without explanation or improvements. Among the 49 Google results one can mostly find either primary sources or unrelaible ones. The best independent source I could find about it was this passing mention where it gets one sentence in a paragraph about the 48 light railway schemes proposed in 1899 and 1900. The remainder of the book sources (well, mostly magazine sources) are the announcement that the company had been formed. perhaps a redirect to Light Railways Act 1896 with a short mention there may be a good solution. As at the moment that article doesn't even mention this scheme, deletion seems to be the most logical way forward though. Fram (talk) 07:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep It seems clear the railway was authorised by parliament, a company was formed and extensive planning was done. There's plenty of detail, if we want it but if the current stub doesn't get much further that's fine too.   Andrew D. (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "It seems"... is your !keep based on anything substantial or is this the same kind of drive-by action as your prod removal? Fram (talk) 07:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) When I do prod patrol, I pick out topics whose titles seem promising. I then skim possible sources for the topics to check my initial impression.  If I then go on to remove the prod, I don't start discussion because that's not part of the prod process – prods are supposed to be indisputable.  In this case, the topic is a railway and, in my experience, railways are very well documented.  Last night, for example, I watched a good TV show about the history of railway development which maintained that railways were more important than the internet in changing UK society.  With this general understanding, I checked the sources again and find plenty of detail about the proposed route in the London Gazette and there seem to be detailed plans in the National Archives.  I'm not sufficiently interested to work on the topic myself but am fairly sure that it should be left in main space for others to improve, as they see fit. Andrew D. (talk) 07:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, you provided a link to support your !keep. Not that the link has anything to do with this article, but still, it is an improvement. FYI, it is a light railway, not a railway, and it is one that never was built. As for the London Gazette, that is a primary source (companies publish their announcements, no journalism is involved; I checked the three results it produces), just like detailed plans in the National Archive would be. What we need are reliable secondary sources with indepth coverage instead. Fram (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The London Gazette is a newspaper, and thus a secondary source. Mjroots (talk) 09:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The 3 articles on the railway are all announcements by the companies involved (i.e. primary sources), not independent (secondary) sources. A reprint of a press release (to call it a bit anachronistically) is not a secondary source. And you still haven't corrected the obvious error at the start of your "keep". Fram (talk) 10:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The London Gazette indicates that there were to have been multiple railways – 22 of them. The relevant legislation was the Light Railways Act 1896.  Our article about that leads to two other schemes which were not built – Headcorn and Maidstone Junction Light Railway and Southern Heights Light Railway.  Those articles will be good models for further development of the page in question. Andrew D. (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Headcorn and Maidstone Junction Light Railway was approved and partly built. Southern Heights Light Railway wsa approved, the one up for deletion here wasn't (despite claims by people wanting to keep it). Apart from that, you still have not provided any reliable secondary sources to support your statements. Fram (talk) 10:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - The railway was authorised discussed by Parliament, which means that there will be record of it in Hansard. It should also have received coverage in the railway press over the years. Just a question of finding the sources and expanding the stub. Mjroots (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't blindly believe what Andrew D. claims. As far as I can tell, it was never approved but the application deferred according to this source I already linked above. Fram (talk) 07:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Give me some credit! Try these two newspaper items for a start.
 * Both mention the scheme and application for authorisation. Mjroots (talk) 08:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, like you say, there was an application. That's still far removed from being "authorised by parliament", which you both claimed as keep reason and for which I still have no evidence to support it. Fram (talk) 09:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - there are multiple RS in a this google book search, and I suspect a less constrained search might find more. Contemporary sources probably react to the 1899 Railway Order, whereas the 1999 The Tramway Review demonstrates it to be of sufficient note a century later to justify column inches - not least, that article notes it to be the most ambitious light railway proposal of the period. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep " that never was built,"  So GNG et al is now over-ridden by commercial success?
 * I also fail to see why not having obtained an Act of Parliament is any sort of problem here. As a Light Railway, it didn't need one. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * "Of course, "that never was built" was the only thing I wrote, silly of me that I didn't realise that. The fact that there are no significant reliable sources unearthed yet (the one source added to the article is the one I presented in my nomination, and which has all of two short lines about the railway) has obviously no relation to the GNG whatsoever. And "I also fail to see why not having obtained an Act of Parliament is any sort of problem here": I never claimed that this is is a problem. The problem is that two people are basing their "keep"s on the claim that the railway had obtained an Act of Parliament, which is false. Pointing out errors in other people's statements is still encouraged, I hope? Fram (talk) 10:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per the ample sources demonstrated to exist by others. I very strongly suspect that there will be additional off-line sources available in various local archives for a scheme of this date, nature and extent. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Which reliable, secondary sources would that be? Which of the sources provided by the other people in this discussion are secondary sources with significant, indepth coverage of this? So far, they are either announcements by the promoters of the railway, or a two-sentence passing mention in a railway magazine I provided at the very start. Fram (talk) 10:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Plans were filled and are held at the National Library as part of the Ministry of Transport Archive Records. see:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oakcat (talk • contribs) 17:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I know that this is headed for a keep, but your argument for keep has nothing to do with notability. That a company files plans with a ministry, and that these plans are kept, is routine dealing with a primary source. That's not the required significant attention in secondary sources. Fram (talk) 06:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per all of the above. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.