- 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. With many thanks to Timothy Titus for expanding the article thus making it worthy of keeping (I appreciate article content isn't in the remit of AFD but nonetheless i saw no use in keeping a one-lined article that could be better served as a redirect however Timothy's expansion has now resolved those concerns and as such I'm happy to finally close this AFD as Keep), Thanks, (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 14:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Evesham Vale Light Railway ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nominating this for deletion. The only real proper prose writing is one sentence, the rest is an okay-sourced table. However, in a WP:BEFORE search for any significant coverage, I found...... nothing bar a local news site (which barely gives much information to support anything new in the article). Nominating for deletion on these grounds. Mattdaviesfsic ( talk) 19:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mattdaviesfsic ( talk) 19:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. I added some references. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 22:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Now there are enough references to show notability. -- Verbarson talk edits 13:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Enough sources to establish notability per WP:GNG Garuda3 ( talk) 13:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Well referenced, for citation and notability. Requires expansion, but that's no reason for deletion. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 00:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect into Evesham#Economy where the park/mall, of which this miniature railway is an attraction, is mentioned under its current name. For now too little substance to keep and even the sole sentence is outdated. I have added the attraction to this mention. Enwiki suffers from too much fragmentation. gidonb ( talk) 01:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep There is enough proper sourcing that establishes notability. TH1980 ( talk) 03:05, 4 June 2023 (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 keep. With many thanks to Timothy Titus for expanding the article thus making it worthy of keeping (I appreciate article content isn't in the remit of AFD but nonetheless i saw no use in keeping a one-lined article that could be better served as a redirect however Timothy's expansion has now resolved those concerns and as such I'm happy to finally close this AFD as Keep), Thanks, (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 14:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Evesham Vale Light Railway ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nominating this for deletion. The only real proper prose writing is one sentence, the rest is an okay-sourced table. However, in a WP:BEFORE search for any significant coverage, I found...... nothing bar a local news site (which barely gives much information to support anything new in the article). Nominating for deletion on these grounds. Mattdaviesfsic ( talk) 19:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mattdaviesfsic ( talk) 19:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. I added some references. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 22:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Now there are enough references to show notability. -- Verbarson talk edits 13:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Enough sources to establish notability per WP:GNG Garuda3 ( talk) 13:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Well referenced, for citation and notability. Requires expansion, but that's no reason for deletion. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 00:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect into Evesham#Economy where the park/mall, of which this miniature railway is an attraction, is mentioned under its current name. For now too little substance to keep and even the sole sentence is outdated. I have added the attraction to this mention. Enwiki suffers from too much fragmentation. gidonb ( talk) 01:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep There is enough proper sourcing that establishes notability. TH1980 ( talk) 03:05, 4 June 2023 (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.