Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loughborough Top Shed

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. Might have been WP:CRYSTAL to begin with. Fails WP:GNG. Consensus is to delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Loughborough Top Shed[edit]

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

I'm afraid this is a project that never got off the ground. Funding was promised, on a timescale of several years (as this project required the bridging of the Gap north of Loughborough Central station). The roof girders of the former LNWR Workington shed were obtained, intended to be used, and stored at Swithland Sidings for a while, and then quietly scrapped as they were in worse condition than previously thought. Meanwhile, it turned out that the former tip site where they wanted to put the shed, being made of rubbish, could not really support the weight of the buildings/locomotives that would site on it, at least not without very expensive. Furthermore, there would have to be a new bridge over the Hermitage Brook, which would cause additional expense. Present plans are to rebuild the life expired shed at Loughborough on more or less on the same site, probably with a single track on the down side. Tony May (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If any of that is verifiable, then what you have is more verifiable information on the subject to add to the article, and an implicit argument for keeping. (Of course, if what you say is not verifiable, then you have no argument at all for anything.) Please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy and remember that this is an encyclopaedia. We don't delete things because they don't exist. We delete things because they never got documented by the world and are not published parts of the general corpus of human knowledge. We keep things that are known about and documented by the world in depth, even if that knowledge is that something was planned and then failed. Readers expect to receive the knowledge of that planning and failure when they look that thing up in an encyclopaedia. If you have verifiable knowledge to add to the encyclopaedia, you should be adding it, not nominating articles for deletion. Only nominate articles for deletion when you have determined that there is no verifiable knowledge to be had at all, because the subject was never documented. Uncle G (talk) 09:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could merge with Great Central Railway (heritage railway), though the lack of sources (even sources connected with the project which wouldn't establish notability but could provide additional detail) is a problem. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:GNG I could not find any significant in-depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2012 (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.