Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creamy Kate and Trailer


 * 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The result was withdrawn. I was going to withdraw this earlier today but I am now since the article has improved. (non-admin closure) SwisterTwister   talk  04:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Creamy Kate and Trailer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It appears to be a non-notable rail car, multiple Google News, newspapers and Books (I even tried at Google New Zealand) found nothing aside from a Wikipedia mirror book. Now granted, this car is from the 1930s but I simply don't see any improvement or a chance to redirect or move. SwisterTwister  talk  05:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete There's a lot of information in the article, but the lack of sources is concerning.  Rcsprinter123    (drone)  @ 17:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is an extensive page on The Rail Motor Society Incorporated's webpage that includes a useful and reliable references list, and another on the trailer. From my brief look I think there is enough in these links to adequately backup the article. There are unlikely to be many online sources - libraries are your friend for subjects like this. this link shows there is coverage in the Australian Railway Historical Societies 1971 bulletins. The book Railmotors and XPTs (David Cooke) ISBN 0909650233 will also cover this unit.- Peripitus (Talk) 12:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I will admit, that is much better and at least is now referenced like the other related trains. SwisterTwister   talk  17:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep article has been copy edited, smaller than it was but now cited Mo7838 (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I will admit, that is much better and at least is now referenced like the other related trains. SwisterTwister   talk  17:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep. Even a single-instance railway vehicle class is probably notable, and reliable sources exist. Mackensen (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mo7838's massive improvements - The sourcing isn't perfect but like with any other pre 70s articles sourcing isn't the easiest to find which is why leniency is given, Anyway Keep. – Davey 2010 Talk 02:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)