Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newton Longville 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 was redirect to East West Rail Link. Mackensen (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Newton Longville railway station

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Proposed station on a closed line. Only ref is to a blog post - not really establishing notability. Nordic  Nightfury  07:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Nightfury  07:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Nightfury  07:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: proposed station on planned line, and better refs have now been provided. Pam  D  08:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to East_West_Rail_Link - other editors' arguments are convincing. Pam  D  22:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete: This station was once proposed several years ago but is not in current plans. Lamberhurst (talk) 10:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per PamD. Sufficient references provided to prove notablity. Thryduulf (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   13:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Apparently, not in the current plans. Doesn't exist and it appears it never will. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge: How about merging, as a compromise.  The improved article has just three sentences and four references.  It could be merged entirely into East West Rail Link article which currently mentions Newton Longville in one place (but does not link to this article).  Merging and leaving a redirect behind would be clearly superior to deletion, because it leaves the edit history and enables re-creation if/when there is more content developed.  Keeping the article as is would also be okay, as it does have sources, but I don't think it is terribly important to have it as a separate article if all the material can be merged.  It seems silly, anyhow, to argue in this AFD about whether the station will be built or not, which no one can know for sure.  It is documented to be a proposal. -- do  ncr  am  00:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. None of the sources in the article even come close to meeting WP:RS.  Several of them are nothing more than a name on a map.  One is is the "Great Western Passengers' Forum", i.e. a blog.  This doesn't even meet WP:V, let alone WP:N.  -- RoySmith (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To be fair, this does meet WP:V in the extremely limited sense that we can verify that it's been proposed. Orthogonal to that, I have no objection to a redirect per .  -- RoySmith (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to East West Rail Link. Proposed station; Not sure if it is in any current plans. This article doesn't say much other than it is a proposed station - not much to merge into East West Rail Link which says the same thing with a few less words. MB 04:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect - clearly not enough to warrant a standalone article, and there is virtually nothing of import, with reliable sourcing, to merge. The redirect will preserve the edit history, and if at some point in the future this station actually comes into being, and is notable, than the page can be revived.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:17, 2 January 2017 (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.