Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mangapps Railway Museum


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. (non-admin closure) Garuda3 (talk) 08:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Mangapps Railway Museum

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

Mangapps Railway Museum as an article has existed since 2005. In that time, not a single citation has been added; indeed the page has been tagged as having no citations at all since 2014. Searching what resources I have available to me doesn’t yield any useful cites to back up the article, which mostly consists of lists of museum exhibits. Danners430 (talk) 07:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Transportation. Danners430 (talk) 07:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep with thanks to the nominator. If articles are unsourced they should be deleted or improved. Sources for museums are sometimes hard to identify. Heritage Railway journal does cover this museum in a number of articles. There ought to be some local coverage as well but on the first pass this is what I found. BusterD (talk) 08:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - needing improvement is not a reason to delete. A search of the Vintage Carriages Trust website should provide plenty of references for carriages, wagons and electric multiple unit vehicles. There is also a link to a locomotives database, which might be useable. Mjroots (talk) 10:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep There's coverage in the BBC about a portion of the museum and many of the locomotives are featured in a book  Oaktree b (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:ATD - follow the advice of our editing policy and improve the article WP:PRESERVE. Editors above have pointed out that sources WP:NEXIST Lightburst (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets the WP:GNG. In need of expansion yet WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. I have removed the tag since 2014, as it no longer held water. gidonb (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The tag was correct until yesterday, when the first sources were added - I’ll reinstate a more sources tag shortly. Danners430 (talk) 06:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I’m more than happy to withdraw the nomination given the addition of valid sources - at the time of nominating, the article was unsourced, so it’s glad progress is being made. When I have more time I’ll take a more in-depth look for some sources too. Danners430 (talk) 06:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for withdrawing the nomination, User:Danners430. Any uninvolved user may close this process with no argument from us as of this datestamp.
 * Again, we thank the nominator for noticing any page completely uncited and tagged for an extensive time and then bringing it to the community's attention. This is good user behavior, despite our good faith chiding. The article was improved, and the nom moved it forward. I would encourage the nominator to read and utilize WP:BEFORE, but I want this long time contributor to know IMHO this was a useful nomination and is appreciated. BusterD (talk) 07:00, 3 May 2023 (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.