Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardiff Central to Nottingham 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. Waggers (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cardiff Central to Nottingham Line

Cardiff Central to Nottingham Line (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This page has been subject to numerous reversions by anonymous users, to determine whether it deserves to be an article in its own right, or a redirect to CrossCountry. In an attempt to end this warring, I have decided to nominate it, so that a formal discussion can take place. If the result is delete, the redirect can then be re-applied. As this is to prevent warring, my own stance is strictly neutral.  – Tivedshambo (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Since a consensus discussion has already taken place (on this and the related Cardiff Central to Newcastle Line), which has decided that these two entities do not actually exist, I move for a speedy close as redirect. 90.203.45.214 (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. To repeat the discussion at WT:RAIL (now archived), a railway line article should be about a physical stretch of track. This is not the case here: instead, this article is about a train service which uses various lines to get between Cardiff and Nottingham. While a redirect to CrossCountry, the name of the company which operates the service, might be a reasonable compromise, it seems a little odd. So I suggest deleting this article. Any other "line" articles which are really about services should meet the same fate in due course, but that's a matter for WT:RAIL first, rather than AfD. --RFBailey (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• I vote speedy merge - not just redirect, as the Cross Country route page does not have any info about this section of line. 81.171.170.250 (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to the article about CrossCountry (the train operator) or Cross Country Route (about the Bristol-Birmingham-Derby line)? --RFBailey (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The service is mentioned near the top of CrossCountry. The physical tracks are: South Wales Main Line, Gloucester to Newport Line, Cross Country Route and Midland Main Line (from west to east). Those cover the infrastructural aspects of the journey. 90.203.45.214 (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - as one of the protagonists in this dispute is currently blocked, I suggest that it would be only fair not to make any speedy decision, but to allow this user to make a comment when their block is lifted. – Tivedshambo (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  As posted elsewhere, said "protagonist in this dispute" is a known problem user (Special:Contributions/128.240.229.65 Special:Contributions/128.240.229.66 Special:Contributions/128.240.229.67 Special:Contributions/128.240.229.68, and associated talk pages), so I somewhat object to this being described as a bona fide edit war. I should note here that while the IP addresses are shared, it is clear that the problem contributions were all clearly by one person. 90.203.45.214 (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• A redirect to CrossCountry sounds good to me. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: It now reads that it is a rail route, rather than a line. Therefore I see no reason for deletion but perhaps a rename to Cardiff Central to Nottingham route. 128.240.229.65 (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment from Creator: I don't see why it should be deleted becuase it's been changed to read a route/service not a line, which it is. Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. As previously mentioned, the line does not exist; it is simply a route operated along several real lines, and as such there is little that can be said about it that would not be better placed in the operator’s article. David Arthur (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: User:Welshleprechaun has now moved the article to Cardiff Central to Nottingham Route. --RFBailey (talk) 04:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: In fact, I think a page should be made for all CrossCountry routes rather than making the CrossCountry page too long. Welshleprechaun (talk) 12:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a bad idea for various reasons. First, the general Wikipedia practice is to split content from articles once they grow too large, not to pre-empt this. The CrossCountry article certainly hasn't grown too large yet. Second, where would you stop? Having pages for occasional services that run once a day, or (worse) once a week in summer? What about other operators--why just this one? This is a slippery slope which, quite frankly, I don't want to see us go down. --RFBailey (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, such a practice would split information away from where people are likely to look for it, and result in needless duplication — already, much of the disputed article’s content is a redundant summary of the geography and transport links of Wales and the Midlands. David Arthur (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - services change more often than lines and if we went down this route, there would be too much unnecessary duplication. Merge it into CrossCountry. WelshBloke (talk) 10:14, 11 December 2007 (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.