Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheffield to Hull 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield to Hull Line

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Malformed article. Not a railway line in the conventional sense eg Settle-Carlisle Line. No evidence in literature (railway/historical/web search) found for the topic. Some train services do run from Hull to Sheffield - this is not a reason to create an article - that subject is already covered in List of Northern Rail routes number 30

Summary, fails WP:VERIFY , possible invention Prof.Haddock (talk) 02:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As with the now-deleted Outer South London Line, this is another Wiki-invention for the service operated on a series of rail lines. The only reference given doesn't support the article's name and the vast majority of google hits are from Wiki-clone sites and sites which have copied from here. The article thus fails verifiability and notability as the reflection of a railway service pattern which is contrary to WP:NOTTIMETABLE. Lamberhurst (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Non notable railcruft. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply fails WP:NOTABILITY. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge This covers tracks and stations which are not covered elsewhere. I don't think deleting it is the answer. The material should probably be renamed or found a different home though. G-13114 (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a missing article "Hull and Doncaster branch" or similar that needs to be written to cover the "Hatfield landslip" content - I'm aware of that and intend to write it 'soon'.Prof.Haddock (talk) 06:30, 9 July 2014 (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.