Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double heading


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Double heading

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No sources since 2008. Fails WP:V Slender (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes WP:GNG per the significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 11:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Like many articles on trains, this is in a sorry state and sorely needs both references and a rewrite. However, there's plenty of SIGCOV to justify keeping the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Evidently notable given the sources shared above. NemesisAT (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep quite notable; NOIMPROVEMENT is not a reason to delete. There are many sources, and it is a railway topic that is definite notable due to the worldwide usage. Gorden 2211 (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.