Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/York & Selby Lines


 * 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. The advocates of keeping have failed to address the rationale for deletion; they seem to admit that the article in its current form fails to meet inclusion criteria but that an "alternative home" might be found for the information. If anyone wants this to be userfied, with an eye to incorporating some of the content into another article, drop a note on my talk page. Deor (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

York & Selby Lines

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An article likely to mislead based on a single source. The source is given the article - a single webpage by West Yorkshire Metro see http://www.wymetro.com/TrainTravel/traintimetables/yorkandselby/ Ponts:


 * West Yorkshire Metro uses this term on a webpage and timetable - the majority of the services described are not operated by West Yorkshire Metro - but by  Northern Rail, and Transpennine Express - who do not use this term York & Selby Lines at all.


 * As far as I can tell this article is based on the misinterpretation of a single source - a timetable produced by a company that does not operate the trains on the "line"


 * As such the current article misleads in giving the impression that "York and Selby Lines" is commonly used or an official title for this set of lines


 * I found no evidence outside the single source for any usages of the term "York and Selby line" to mean anything other than the rail line or service between York and Selby.

..Even the lead section is wrong - quote "The York & Selby Lines is the name given to a group of services in the West Yorkshire Metro area" - most of the services described are well outside the West Yorkshire Metro area - it contradicts its own source... I don't think this article can be made to make sense, realistically.Prof.Haddock (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. If it isn't the bus spotters it is the train spotters. Nom is completely correct. Szzuk (talk) 09:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless alternative is found, Maybe this isn't the best home for this, but I don't think we can just go around deleting articles like these without finding an alternative home for the material. Wikipedia should have some coverage of these routes. Simply deleting them is not a sensible solution. G-13114 (talk) 10:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per G-13114, we should not delete these articles until we have a suitable alternative lined up. I grant you this article will need to go eventually, but there should be time allowed for the WT:UKRAIL community to discuss how to cover these lines instead of "York and Selby". If we delete these then we get left with a swathe of railway for which we have no article, and that is worse than having an ill-fitting article. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Copied an (shortened) answer from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways


 * The basic service described in (Leeds to York, Selby, and Hull) is covered be under Hull and Selby Railway, Leeds and Selby Railway, , and York and North Midland Railway (part of)
 * There is/was a "York and Selby line" .. a direct line from York to Selby. This was part of the line known historically as the "York to Doncaster branch", (Act was N.E.R.(York and Doncaster Branch) 1864 Act (c.xlix)). An article that hasn't been written yet. Briefly mentioned in the ECML article.
 * One solution is a disambiguation.
 * However I don't think it is a good idea to keep an article simply because it exists. The usage is misleading, based on a single source (there aren't other sources), and contradicted by sources that should be more reliable eg Northern Rail, Transpennine Express and the historical record.Prof.Haddock (talk)
 * I'm not arguing that the article should be kept indefinitely, just that there should be time for people to discuss what actually needs to happen with it. I was away on holiday for a week and came back to find two line articles had been deleted, leaving areas of the network uncovered. Just give us some time so we can work out which bits go where. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would argue that there is "nothing to save" since the article is mostly nonsense -as it is based on a false supposition - also WP:REDLINKs can be a good thing.
 * ? Do you want an admin to pause this process for 2 weeks or something and then return. I have no issues ? Prof.Haddock (talk) 16:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I oppose the afd being paused, the content can be copied to any incubation destination prior to deletion. Szzuk (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the page meets deletion criteria under WP:NRVE, WP:OR and WP:SYN ie creation of topic not covered elsewhere, based on an interpretation of a single source. As such also appears to be a case of WP:NEO (invention/promotion) of a new term.Prof.Haddock (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per the Prof. Per WP:PRODUCT services should be covered at the operators' pages.Charles (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete for the same reasons as for Sheffield to Hull, Hull to York and Outer South London Line. Lamberhurst (talk) 07:37, 20 July 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.