Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denvilles railway station


 * 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 of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts talk 23:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Denvilles railway station
This station does not exist and never has existed. User:Unisouth has clearly seen some ruins but seems totally unconcerned by the lack of documentary evidence. Tubechallenger agrees with me - see this talk page. -- RHaworth 02:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC) (Revised below.) *Delete This may exist inside the imagination of the person who created it, I guess. I've changed my vote to Keep due to a reliable source by Vizjim. Thanks for alerting me! :) Funnybunny 23:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence of the existance of this railway station on the internet (that is, except for on Wikipedia) Keep per below -- T B C [[Image:Confused-tpvgames.gif|18px|]] ???   ???   ??? 03:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. No sources provided despite clear urges to do so. Verifiability concerns are always serious. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing a source Vizjim. Now there is something to work with. Keep. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above and WP:V. Roy  boy cr ash  fan  [[Image:Flag of Texas.svg|30px]] 06:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per the below. Roy  boy cr ash  fan  [[Image:Flag of Texas.svg|30px]] 20:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Not only did it exist, it was notable as part of a dispute between two railway companies as to who would get to run the London-Havant line. I have added data and evidence on the page.  The fact that it was only in use for two years in the mid-19th century might explain the lack of online evidence.Vizjim 08:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. If the station did exist, then it would be listed in Quail Trackmaps, and also the UK Rail Atlas by OPC. Tubechallenger 10:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC) (adding more information), Farlington station did indeed exist for a few years until it was abandoned, with the right side of the triangle being named Farlington Junction as reference. Denvilles does exist, and is around a mile from Havant, the "apparent" proposed station according to Quail does not exist for any point between 37.40 miles (to Portsmouth direct) (mileage change to 66.18) Shalford Junction at 31.42 miles (nr. Farncombe) Tubechallenger 15:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep --WikiCats 10:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, Comment. currently the article has no factual information, dates... Not much really. It ought to be deleted until someone with tangible and verifiable information can reopen the article, maybe even with historic photographs. Even if it is likely that the station existed the current article does not reflect that and it is on those grounds that it should be deleted. Captain scarlet 10:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, hoax and unverifiable. --Ter e nce Ong 11:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. The photo is almost certainly a copyvio (looks like google map satellite imagery to me). Eusebeus 11:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, after reviewing the reference Vizjim provided. It does indicate - in passing - that a temporary platform (not a station) existed at Denvilles for two years, I don't think a temporary platform that existed for two years is encyclopaedic, when the references consist of one brief mention. It was not the centre of the dispute mentioned by Vizjim, nor was it particularly relevant to the dispute. The image is indeed probably a copyvio.    Proto    ||    type    11:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per   Proto    ||    type    Celcius 13:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete keep; if other stations on this line have articles, this one should be able to as well, even if it was only briefly used. However, the current article asserts essentially nothing and is a copyvio to boot. If it's vastly improved, I'll vote to keep. ProhibitOnions 16:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment proof found!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the station recollections (click) the bottom has this quote The L.S.W.R. did, however, start a service from London but passengers had to alight at a temporary platform which was erected in Denvilles. is that proof or what. it is because of this i have removed the articles for deletion tag. i will expand the article to include this nformation. the southerner 18:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:KIT. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2006-03-30 21:14
 * Keep. If we cover the line we should keep the closed stations even if they are in ruins. -- JJay 01:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge with London and South Western Railway, as it's not clear if it was actually called "Denvilles station" - it was a temporary platform. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 03:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * (Changed view of nominator) Merge into Portsmouth Direct Line and redirect - the story is notable but it does not really qualify for a ... railway station article. A very pleasing outcome, we can both say we were right! Unisouth has probably, correctly identified a place where people got on and off trains. But RHaworth can say: yes, but even the LSWR never gave it the exalted title of "station", if they called it anything it would have been "Denvilles halt" or just "Denvilles platform". So come on Unisouth, take a trip to Winchester and visit your county's local studies library, see if you can unearth some contemporary documents like the Bradshaw for 1859 with a note saying "passengers are conveyed by omnibus ...". -- RHaworth 08:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment what if i try to change the name of the article of the station to Denvilles halt. people have to know about this peace of history so we have to keep it. the southerner 08:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC) ps: if anyne knows how to change an articles name tell me on my user page thanks.
 * Comment I've fould out how to move the page so its now at denvilles haltthe southerner 09:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * CommentThe Denvilles station has some interesting history to it - there were other battles besides the battle of Havant - so KEEP it. Tabletop 09:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment some articles have only two lines! this article is very important as it is a article. its written in detail and we know that it is a keeper so lets keep it. the southerner 09:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC) its at denvilles halt now in case you have forgotten. those other twoliners should be merged or deleted not this one.
 * Keep - the frog war article describes a US version of the Battle of Havant. Tabletop 04:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I visited the site today and there is clearly evidence the station was there the southerner 15:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Have you taken any photographs, notes, sketches ? Why don't you sign with your username ? Captain scarlet 16:15, 1 April 2006 (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.