Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Valley 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   no consensus. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Don Valley Railway

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable railway project. Generated minimal local press interest (1 article) when announced in 2006. Now looks to be defunct—there is no further press coverage, and their web site has not been updated since 2007. Jeremy (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable, and the first reference is stored on their own website. I cannot find it anywhere else.  Goodvac   ( talk ) 20:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy if someone wants this, otherwise Delete. At the moment, we don't know whether this project will ever take off, so the question is whether this project would still be considered notable if it gets no further. Based on the coverage on GNews at the moment, it looks like a no. Should construction begin, it would undoubtedly be a yes, but we're not there yet. (There would, however, be a case for including this in a list of proposed/defunct heritage railway projects in the UK should someone want to do that.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Granted, notability's not well-established and acceptable sources are hard to locate; however, I did find this from a bit over a month ago, stating that a commuter service, in addition to the weekend heritage service, was another proposed use of the new line. That seems to indicate that there's still some life left in the project. I've added that information and source to the article; however,I've not yet located anything later than that news item to indicate any further progress. Northumbrian (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I held off from nominating this article for a long time to see if there were any further developments. In the light of the new information that you have found I am happy to say weak keep too. I'll maybe revisit the article in a few months. —Jeremy (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Very good. I found another source with a bit more content and restructured the article a bit. Certainly a slow-motion project to say the least. Northumbrian (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as above. Needs much more content but if this can be found then the article could be useful NRTurner (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak keep -- In view of recent additions, this may now be a weak keep, but there is rather too much WP:CRYSTAL about it.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2010 (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.