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 keep. J04n(talk page) 13:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North British, Arbroath and Montrose Railway

[edit]

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

No citations, no signs of significance smileguy91^talk 21:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

redirect this to East Coast Main Line.Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Yes, redirect because it is a likely search term and there is hardly anything to merge (and what there is is wrong!). However, the East Coast Main Line article rather loses focus north of the border so Edinburgh to Aberdeen Line would be a better target. The latter does actually mention this historical railway company. References are available and there is no reason to delete.[1] Thincat (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to North British Railway with which it appears to have merged in 1880 according to this source. The historical company may have been notable, but I see no evidence of that on the internet and redirection would not prejudice recreation if somebody came up with the material. --AJHingston (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References are available via Google and I have begun adding these into the article. See also the "What links here", which is another useful WP:BEFORE check. A historical railway company, established by Act of Parliament, is part of the record and worthy of noting in an encyclopaedia. It is a stub, but one for improvement, not deletion. AllyD (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (I !voted above) I agree the topic is notable but the article I saw would have been improved by making it a redirect. The North British Railway would be (would have been) a better target except it doesn't mention the company at all. Thincat (talk) 10:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - needing improvement is never a reason to delete. Per Ally, an historic company which deserves an article. It would appear that the Edinburgh Gazette would be a rich source of info on the company. Mjroots (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a historic part of the British railways history. It may be a smaller part, and a short-lived part, but it's still a part of it. These may also be of use: [2][3][4][5][6] Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for the moment to North British Railway, allowing for a split when enough details become available per WP:SPLIT. It's notable. Edgepedia (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I have struck my !vote above but kept my comment). The article has been developed, partly by myself so it now establishes notability. In fact the line's viaducts were particularly notable at the time, notorious even, because, following the Tay Bridge disaster they were strengthened, demolished and rebuilt before the line had even been opened. Thincat (talk) 11:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to say, that is a fine job that User:Thincat in particular has done on improving this article over the past day. AllyD (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have struck out my earlier comments - the article now does what it should. There are often editors around who know their British railways; would that other topics were as well served. --AJHingston (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - reasonably well referenced and a good start. Simply south...... catching SNOWballs for just 7 years 12:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact this article was nominated for deletion less than a day after it was created. Simply south...... eating shoes for just 7 years 12:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge up to parent, if it can't stand on its own. —Sladen (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- now adequately referenced. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - beginnings of a good and useful article. DBaK (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2013 (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.