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. postdlf (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep, this is notable since it is a railway open to the public, but more sources would be preferable.
Snowsuit Wearer (
talk|
contribs) 13:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak delete. This amounts to split content from
Isle of Wight Steam Railway, so I'm not sure we should worry about notability. Rolling stock lists are pretty common, though I'm not a fan. The items on the list aren't notable, and these lists in general tend to acquire unverifiable railfan cruft. I don't know that any policies govern this use case. These lists by their nature are self-referenced and best handled with an external link back to the railway's website instead of a list which reproduces that site's content.
Mackensen(talk) 14:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - Similar lists exist for other major UK heritage railways. They are split off from the HR article for size reasons.
Mjroots (
talk) 19:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - It seems like a merge would make the target article, from which this was extracted from, too long. --
Oakshade (
talk) 05:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep as a historical article, Sourcing needs improvement but notability's there .–
Davey2010Talk 19:37, 22 September 2015 (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.
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. postdlf (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep, this is notable since it is a railway open to the public, but more sources would be preferable.
Snowsuit Wearer (
talk|
contribs) 13:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak delete. This amounts to split content from
Isle of Wight Steam Railway, so I'm not sure we should worry about notability. Rolling stock lists are pretty common, though I'm not a fan. The items on the list aren't notable, and these lists in general tend to acquire unverifiable railfan cruft. I don't know that any policies govern this use case. These lists by their nature are self-referenced and best handled with an external link back to the railway's website instead of a list which reproduces that site's content.
Mackensen(talk) 14:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - Similar lists exist for other major UK heritage railways. They are split off from the HR article for size reasons.
Mjroots (
talk) 19:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - It seems like a merge would make the target article, from which this was extracted from, too long. --
Oakshade (
talk) 05:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep as a historical article, Sourcing needs improvement but notability's there .–
Davey2010Talk 19:37, 22 September 2015 (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.