Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outer South London Line


 * 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; consensus and strength of argument is stronger for deletion. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Outer South London Line

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The first sentence says it all ''"The Outer South London Line is an unofficial name...".

The "line" comprises parts of the Brighton Main Line and the Crystal Palace Line. There do not appear to be any reliable sources referencing the name - the few ghits which aren't wikipedia mirrors are forums or user comments (not even the train operator calls it this). -mattbuck (Talk) 09:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and could the closing admin, if this is closed as delete, also move Inner South London Line to South London Line, as this disambiguation was created due to the Outer South London Line page. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Invented wiki-name with no references since its creation to demonstrate verifiability or notability. As stated above, the article describes a service pattern which in itself fails WP:NOTTIMETABLE. Lamberhurst (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as obviously unofficial name & no evidence of notability. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  12:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, but Rewrite and rename or Redirect - While the name is apparently invented by a Wiki-user, that doesn't make it an illegitimate line. If there is an official name it should be renamed as such. Otherwise redirect it to either the Brighton Main Line or the Crystal Palace Line. -User:DanTD (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a legitimate line in the railway sense. There may be services that operate that route, but they don't have a particular name. Nor should it be redirected as it is not completely covered by the Brighton Main Line or the Crystal Palace Line. The best redirect would be to Inner South London Line (or rather "South London Line", as it should be renamed once this is deleted). -mattbuck (Talk) 21:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So would that make it more like the Metra Rock Island District which splits between the Beverly Branch and Rush Hour branch? -User:DanTD (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Unlike the Rock Island line, this particular route has no individual identity as such. One user has thrown together parts of two lines and given them a made-up name. The vast majority of ghits are for Wiki-clone sites. Lamberhurst (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I think I useed this many years ago. However it is more a train service than a railway line.  It is convenient to run trains in a loop from one central station to another, rather than on a there and back-again basis.  If "Southern London Line" if an official name, I would support the renaming of the other one: this would not prevent this one surviving under its present name.  Peterkingiron (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, No redirect per Lamberhurst and Davey2010. There is nothing here, no line, no notability. --Bejnar (talk) 05:35, 15 June 2014 (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.