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 Renaissance Trains. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Humber Coast and City Railway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Proposal for a railway company that does not appear to be going ahead Simply south (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to Renaissance Trains. This proposal seems to have died and it can be adequately covered in the Renaissance Trains article. Adambro (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Keep. Either merge to Renaissance Trains or keep. As the service has not been denied and there is large proof that they have applied for access rights. I think the best option would be to merge making Renaissance Trains article better than it is right now.Likelife (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  What is the "large proof that they have applied for access rights"? As far as I can tell no track access application or similar has been made. Adambro (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Adambro, here is proof Renaissance Trains.com near the bottom of the page it says future access rights have been agreed. Likelife (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't find a track access application or similar on the ORR website. The full quote from the RT website says "We have begun work to determine an optimal train service plan and have already held a briefing meeting with Network Rail and the structure and form of a future track access agreement has been agreed." I read that as saying that RT and NR have agreed what form a track access agreement should take. That doesn't in my view indicate either that a track access application has been made or accepted, merely that the company has discussed with NR what form such an agreement could take. Adambro (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL. RadManCF (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would merge into renaissance trains.Shortfatlad (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Renaissance Trains. Website stated to be running by late 2008, it's now 2010. Mjroots (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per others, and my proposed notability guidelines for British open-access train operating companies and proposed companies. Thryduulf (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: precisely this subject was discussed last month here, where I proposed merging this into Renaissance Trains. Unfortunately I was too busy and never got around to doing it..... --RFBailey (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see also similar cases at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great North Eastern Railway (Alliance Rail) (Result: Merge). --Redrose64 (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. Looking at the target article, a merge would give disproportionate attention to this line over other lines. Chutznik (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2010 (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.