Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Underground 2016 Stock: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 15:17, 13 May 2022

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. Cirt (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London Underground 2016 Stock

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

Contravenes WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:OR. The source provided does mention plans for new trains in 2016-2017, but everything else in this article - including the name - is extrapolated original research and pure guesswork. DAJF (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Delete without prejudice to recreation at the appropriate time, which would not be until a contract has been issued for the construction of said stock. Mjroots (talk) 05:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nomination. I prod-ed the 2021 stock article, but it was deprod-ed. The source now given in that article doesn't mention any such thing as "2021 stock", let alone any of the speculation about it which is in the article. Problems appear similar on the 2016 stock article. Strategically, I believe that LU knows that their oldest trains cannot run forever, but we should not be speculating on what they intend to replace the old material with before LU makes any moves. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because they are articles that state that the Underground will be receiving some new rolling stock in 2016 and 2021. Abductive (reasoning) 08:16, 11 November 2009 (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.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
+:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).  No further edits should be made to this page.''
+<!--Template:Afd top
+Note:  If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]].  When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
+The result was    '''delete'''. '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 12:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 ===[[London Underground 2016 Stock]]===
-{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|P}}
 :{{la|London Underground 2016 Stock}} – <includeonly>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Underground 2016 Stock|View AfD]])</includeonly><noinclude>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 November 11#{{anchorencode:London Underground 2016 Stock}}|View log]])</noinclude>
 :({{findsources|London Underground 2016 Stock}})
 Contravenes [[WP:NOTCRYSTAL]] and [[WP:OR]]. The source provided ''does'' mention plans for new trains in 2016-2017, but everything else in this article - including the name - is extrapolated original research and pure guesswork. [[User:DAJF|DAJF]] ([[User talk:DAJF|talk]]) 00:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
+I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:
+:{{la|London Underground 2021 Stock}}
+*'''Delete''' without prejudice to recreation at the ''appropriate'' time, which would not be until a contract has been issued for the construction of said stock. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 05:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
+*'''Delete'''. I agree with the nomination. I prod-ed the 2021 stock article, but it was deprod-ed. The source now given in that article doesn't mention any such thing as "2021 stock", let alone any of the speculation about it which is in the article. Problems appear similar on the 2016 stock article. Strategically, I believe that LU knows that their oldest trains cannot run forever, but we should not be speculating on what they intend to replace the old material with before LU makes any moves. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 06:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' because they are articles that state that the Underground will be receiving some new rolling stock in 2016 and 2021. <span style="font-family:Cambria;">[[User:Abductive|<span style="color:teal;">'''Abductive'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Abductive|reasoning]])</span> 08:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>