Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richmond extensions of the Central Line
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. (don't see the point in leaving a redirect, seems an unlikely search term) Flowerparty☀ 01:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Richmond extensions of the Central Line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
The information in this article has been shown to be false. None of the supposedly proposed stations could be verified, and the articles for them deleted (follow red links in the main article), so there is no reason for this article to exist. Atamachat 22:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Atamachat 22:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources. We don't have to prove it's a hoax; anyone wanting to keep the article needs to prove it is not. Johnuniq (talk) 03:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Kleinzach 04:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the article lacks references to support the article's veracity. I declined the speedy request since the article is not a blatant and outrageously implausible hoax, it is conceivable that old proposals don't make their way into internet sources, although they are probably not notable if they never went past the proposal stage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, but not as a hoax. The Central Line article already covers this with references, and here's confirmation from TFL that this was proposed. There's no need for a separate article when this is covered much better at Central Line. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'll concede it might not have been a hoax; I know that the author has been accused of adding intentionally inaccurate information in other articles and I hadn't been able to confirm the information in this one. I still stand by this deletion, however, since the article is essentially a list of links to other articles (see WP:LIST) yet almost all of the articles have been deleted. Also, as Phil Bridger has pointed out this subject is covered adequately in the Central Line article already. -- Atamachat 16:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:CRYSTAL. Unsourced example of future. Sebwite (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Central Line as useful search term. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Central Line#Richmond extensions as there is nothing additional to merge (although I would not stand in the way of a consensus to merge). It is conceivable that there will in future be enough that can be said about this topic to merit more than a section, but there isn't at the moment. Thryduulf (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.