- 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 British Rail Class 144. Feel free to merge from behind the redirect if you think the article content is better than the target article (seems to be some conjecture over whether this is the case or not). Daniel ( talk) 14:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- British rail class 144e ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Content fork of Class 144. Plainly not needed, original article contains a section on the unit which more than adequately provides what information is needed. Not notable enough in its own right Night fury 13:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Night fury 13:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Night fury 13:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect. I redirected this to the section, but was reverted. A seperate page for this 1 refurbished unit is overkill~, this can easily be handled in one section of the main article. Fram ( talk) 14:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I removed the redirect added at the top of the article. The article should stand alone whilst its fate is being discussed. If it is to be redirected as a result of this discussion, the rediret should be done properly and be targeted to the section of the Class 144 article about the Class 144e. Mjroots ( talk) 15:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, possibly speedily as a
hoax. I never heard of a class 144e; the article contains nothing in the way of sources. The TOPS classification system does not use suffix letters, variants are dealt with by use of class parts - a slash followed by one further figure, as in
Class 150/0,
Class 150/1,
Class 150/2, etc. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
16:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redrose64: Not a hoax, see [1] for example of a source. However, it's more of a specification than a subclass. Rcsprinter123 (rhapsodise) 16:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect While certainly not notable enough for a fork article, it's a real thing, if essentially just a marketing name for a refurbished 144. Rcsprinter123 (shout) 16:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to British Rail Class 144, pointless content fork. SK2242 ( talk) 18:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect: Not a class but a single unit. No notability on its own. -- PhiH ( talk) 18:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to British Rail Class 144 where this can be sufficiently covered. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Merge with British Rail Class 144 as it is just a spinoff of that and doesn't really have much substance as a separate article. Difficultly north ( talk) Simply south alt. 22:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to British Rail Class 144#Class 144e. An entire article is indeed overkill for this, but it is notable in the context of the wider article and the existing section could be usefully expanded with some of the information here. Thryduulf ( talk) 03:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to a section at British Rail Class 144. Article is entirely unsourced and unsourced material should not be merged, it will lower the quality of the target article. Article fail GNG, but even if sources were available, simply meeting GNG does not mean there must be an article; N specifically allows for this: "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." This content is better placed in the target article. // Timothy :: t | c | a 03:11, 18 January 2021 (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.
- 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 British Rail Class 144. Feel free to merge from behind the redirect if you think the article content is better than the target article (seems to be some conjecture over whether this is the case or not). Daniel ( talk) 14:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- British rail class 144e ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Content fork of Class 144. Plainly not needed, original article contains a section on the unit which more than adequately provides what information is needed. Not notable enough in its own right Night fury 13:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Night fury 13:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Night fury 13:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect. I redirected this to the section, but was reverted. A seperate page for this 1 refurbished unit is overkill~, this can easily be handled in one section of the main article. Fram ( talk) 14:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I removed the redirect added at the top of the article. The article should stand alone whilst its fate is being discussed. If it is to be redirected as a result of this discussion, the rediret should be done properly and be targeted to the section of the Class 144 article about the Class 144e. Mjroots ( talk) 15:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, possibly speedily as a
hoax. I never heard of a class 144e; the article contains nothing in the way of sources. The TOPS classification system does not use suffix letters, variants are dealt with by use of class parts - a slash followed by one further figure, as in
Class 150/0,
Class 150/1,
Class 150/2, etc. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
16:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redrose64: Not a hoax, see [1] for example of a source. However, it's more of a specification than a subclass. Rcsprinter123 (rhapsodise) 16:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect While certainly not notable enough for a fork article, it's a real thing, if essentially just a marketing name for a refurbished 144. Rcsprinter123 (shout) 16:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to British Rail Class 144, pointless content fork. SK2242 ( talk) 18:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect: Not a class but a single unit. No notability on its own. -- PhiH ( talk) 18:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to British Rail Class 144 where this can be sufficiently covered. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Merge with British Rail Class 144 as it is just a spinoff of that and doesn't really have much substance as a separate article. Difficultly north ( talk) Simply south alt. 22:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to British Rail Class 144#Class 144e. An entire article is indeed overkill for this, but it is notable in the context of the wider article and the existing section could be usefully expanded with some of the information here. Thryduulf ( talk) 03:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to a section at British Rail Class 144. Article is entirely unsourced and unsourced material should not be merged, it will lower the quality of the target article. Article fail GNG, but even if sources were available, simply meeting GNG does not mean there must be an article; N specifically allows for this: "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." This content is better placed in the target article. // Timothy :: t | c | a 03:11, 18 January 2021 (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.