Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West London Route

: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 redirect to Southern (Govia Thameslink Railway)#Routes. ansh666 09:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

=[[:West London Route]]=

:{{la|West London Route}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/West_London_Route Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|West London Route}})

This is not a railway line; this is a rail service which uses parts of different railway lines. Because all of those lines already have articles, this article is not necessary, especially since British rail services generally do not have their own articles. Jc86035 (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 07:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 07:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Redirect Southern (Govia Thameslink Railway)#Routes. Logical search term and target. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as a copy of West London Line. It isn't even a service, its just a rough commentary of part of an existing one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightfury (talkcontribs) 09:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • This article is not eligible for A10, as it is not newly created. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The route is different to that of the West London Line, though this does not mean that it is notable or that an article is necessary. Jc86035 (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article was created in June and written by a single user, there is simply no need for this, it is a well meaning but redundant content fork. Szzuk (talk) 11:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.