Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Cross Gate Carriage Servicing Depot


 * 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 merge to New Cross Gate railway station.  MBisanz  talk 02:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I queried this close with MBisanz on their talk page, and they have asked that their close be amended to merge to New Cross Gate TMD as they are unable to do so themselves. Thryduulf (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

New Cross Gate Carriage Servicing Depot

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is no indication that this railway depot is notable, other than its inclusion in two books and a website which catalogue railway depots. OpenStreetMap says it has 16 tracks, so it's not particularly large by UK standards, and it's not a listed building. I would redirect it to East London Line. Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 11:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  01:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  01:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

to reply to me 09:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep So we delete it because it's mentioned in two books that specialise in covering this topic? Where were you looking for coverage? Health and Efficiency? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure myself of how important it is, but just because it's mentioned in a specialist book or three doesn't automatically mean it's notable. It doesn't seem to pass WP:NGEO (the policy seems deliberately vague on infrastructure-related articles), and the entire article would fit into a subsection of East London Line. Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125;
 * Keep. Looks adequate to me. There are (stub) station articles with less information than this that nobody contests. Useddenim (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * & Merge per . Useddenim (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge into New Cross Gate railway station. Mjroots (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per above and Merge with the duplicate article New Cross Gate TMD. I don't have an opinion about which title is better. Thryduulf (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2017 (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.