Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Underground 2016 Stock: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Delete vote |
→London Underground 2016 Stock: Delete |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
*'''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''' 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'''. 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. <font face="Cambria">[[User:Abductive|<font color="teal">'''Abductive'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Abductive|reasoning]])</font> 08:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 08:16, 11 November 2009
- London Underground 2016 Stock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (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)
I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:
- London Underground 2021 Stock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)