- 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 merge to Tramlink#Extension D .2F Route 5. czar 06:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Tramlink Route 5
- Tramlink Route 5 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable article about a tram line which was never built. Not enough sources are available to make it pass WP:GNG. Also may fail WP:CRYSTAL, however I'm not entirely sure this applies as the plans have been cancelled. Class455 ( talk| stand clear of the doors!) 15:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Class455 ( talk| stand clear of the doors!) 15:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Class455 ( talk| stand clear of the doors!) 15:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Merge into Tramlink#Future developments. No need for a separate article for a line that was never built, per nom. Rcsprinter123 (utter) 20:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 07:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 07:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete entirely or just mention it in the Tramlink article. It was only "proposed", doesn't really warrant its own page/section in an article. Nördic Nightfury 08:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect to Tramlink#Future developments. All the important content is already there. — Train2104 ( t • c) 03:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- Merge into Tramlink#Future developments - The route as far as I can see was never built so IMHO it's pointless to have an article on a route that was never even built, Better off merged. – Davey2010 Talk 13:24, 20 March 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.
- 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 merge to Tramlink#Extension D .2F Route 5. czar 06:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Tramlink Route 5
- Tramlink Route 5 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable article about a tram line which was never built. Not enough sources are available to make it pass WP:GNG. Also may fail WP:CRYSTAL, however I'm not entirely sure this applies as the plans have been cancelled. Class455 ( talk| stand clear of the doors!) 15:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Class455 ( talk| stand clear of the doors!) 15:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Class455 ( talk| stand clear of the doors!) 15:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Merge into Tramlink#Future developments. No need for a separate article for a line that was never built, per nom. Rcsprinter123 (utter) 20:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 07:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 07:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete entirely or just mention it in the Tramlink article. It was only "proposed", doesn't really warrant its own page/section in an article. Nördic Nightfury 08:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect to Tramlink#Future developments. All the important content is already there. — Train2104 ( t • c) 03:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- Merge into Tramlink#Future developments - The route as far as I can see was never built so IMHO it's pointless to have an article on a route that was never even built, Better off merged. – Davey2010 Talk 13:24, 20 March 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.