Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Underground 2016 Stock
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 (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)[reply]
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)[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.