Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baramulla–Kupwara 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 merge to Jammu-Baramulla line. (non-admin closure) Nördic Nightfury 07:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Baramulla–Kupwara line

Baramulla–Kupwara line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

As per the article itself, in 2009 only a survey was done regarding the line, but no work in action yet. As per the second the second source, "it has been exluded from the budget". No confirm statement regarding when it will be executed. As per WP:CRYSTAL. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:CRYSTAL appears to apply, especially since there does not appear to be any coverage since the initial survey in 2009. Unless something has changed, this just appears to be a footnote rather than an article topic. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• The information about this being an extension of an existing line was not mentioned in the article. However, given that, I would not be averse to a merge and redirect. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Merge This was an actual proposed line. It it not fake. It has been proposed and shelved multiple times in the past, but it is significant because it is located in Kashmir. I have a collection of news articles about it http://www.projectstoday.com/News/Baramulla-Kupwara-railway-project-shelved, http://kashmirreader.com/2016/05/21/govt-ignoring-kupwara-rasheed/, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/transportation/railways/survey-for-jammu-poonch-railway-line-underway-abdul-haq/articleshow/56603719.cms, http://kashmirlife.net/jammu-poonch-baramulla-kupwara-rail-projects-shelved-50152/. This line is actually an extension of the existing Jammu Baramulla line. I don't understand why we need to delete it.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I decided to change my vote from keep to a merge to the Jammu-Baramulla line article. It would be hard to write a full article on this, so the addition of the content and references to Jammu-Baramulla line, mentioning the extension, should be good enough.--DreamLinker (talk) 07:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 04:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• Merge into the Jammu-Baramulla line article as a proposed but deferred extension. Neiltonks (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2017 (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.