Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ffestiniog Railway Index


 * 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   delete. Secret account 00:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ffestiniog Railway Index

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not fit usual Wikipedia navigation style or format and the purpose is already filled by Template:Ffestiniog Railway which is actively used on Ffestiniog railway pages. Byeitical (talk · contribs) 23:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This article has suffered repeated unwarrwnted malicious attempts at deletion since 5 minutes after it was created. It surpass the Template:Ffestiniog Railway in that it is an index for all items related to the FR/WHR, not just the Festiniog. It includes links to other websites with relevant information, including the home site.   This is not covered by the template    It has been accepted into Project Wales and Project Trains, in UK, and is used by a number of pages  --Keith 10:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTLINK. Wikipedia isn't a collection of links, it's an encyclopedia. I think your effort to improve Wikipedia is great, but I feel that putting this information into both the WHR and FR articles would make more useful and more accessible. Byeitical (talk · contribs) 17:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason for creation of this page was to reduce the number of links that were appearing on the pages it is linked to. Whereas previously there may have been upto five links on a page, there is one - to this index page. The template, or rather two, that it supposedly duplicates contains details of quarries, and does not do the same. This enables from the "carriage page" of one railway to the "carriage page" of another, or from FR Locos to WHR Locos - The templates refer to indiviual items only Furthermore, external links to additional information is all centred on this page, rather than having the same information duplicated across numerous pages --Keith 18:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC) --Keith 18:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete; this isn't how navigation is done on Wikipedia, --NE2 10:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. as per NE2 should use the Template:Ffestiniog Railway or you can always create a new WHR navbox for this sort of navigation. MilborneOne (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * there already is a WHR template - neither of them serve the requirement of covering all the related material --Keith 21:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - if the template is insufficient, expand the template. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - the page is not an encyclopedia article, and as a navigation aid, it is duplicative of existing templates. -- Whpq (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Overall and final response: Given the overall comment of using the existing remplates, is indicative the people making the comment do not know what they are talking about.   The page came about as the existing templates did not meet the  criteria required .    There are some 60 plus files involved that can be grouped in the form the page does, whereas the existing templates exist only for two sections of the  three'  parts of the railway.  A template specifically replacing the page would also not duplicate the existing templates, if anyone bothered to look at them.

Yes, this may sound nasty, but if anyone bothered to check the templates being quoted, and the page in question, then they wouldnt make rather stupid comments about duplication which doesnt exist!!! --Keith 18:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply - Speaking for myself, but probably the other editors agree; I am not referring to the content of the template, but rather the function of the template which is to provide navigation. If the template needs expanding to provide the necessary coverage, then expand it. -- Whpq (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2008 (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.