Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Trains B Set


 * 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 Redirect to Sydney Trains A set as consensus is behind a merge or redirect and that seems to be the most popular target. The content can be merged at editorial discretion.  Hut 8.5  20:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Sydney Trains B Set

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No references. Google search does not turn up references that will support this article.

Redirect to another article in the Sydney Trains may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 13:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 13:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Selective merge to article on Sydney trains. As it at the moment, this article is badly typed (I saw at least one spelling mistake) and the first part is taken up with a conspicuous notice about a sandbox being in the article's namespace. However, there might be enough information to be taken from this article and merged with the article on Sydney trains. I do not think there is enough in this article to justify having a standalone article, and the notice about a sandbox does suggest that this article was created by a relatively new user of Wikipedia. Vorbee (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact it had a User sandbox tag should have no bearing on a keep, merge or delete decision. I simply removed the tag. This is something I do fairly often. New editors can't be expected to be fully aware of all our procedures. wbm1058 (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it is very likely that this topic will be notable. There are several newspaper articles on the new trains. However they fail to identify them as "b set". If the writer can come up with reliable sources, and not fan sites that would be good, but a merge may be needed until there is real reliable information about the name. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Article deletion or merging is most suitable, as the information is inaccurate, and there is accurate information already on the Sydney Trains A Set page. The names are correct - the internal order was indeed known as SGT (Sydney Growth Train), the trains are targeted as B-sets B1 through B24, and I've included correct carriage numbering on the page concerned. ~Jaymie Treadwell - I don't have a User/usertalk page on here, editing as visitor only. Contact me via Facebook Messenger for more information if required~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.192.12.117 (talk) 04:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Article should be redirected to Sydney Trains A set which should be renamed Sydney Trains Waratah set The Sydney Trains website which was replaced by the by the Transport for NSW website in the past week, only refes to Waratah Trains and unlike other letter sets, make no mention of A or B sets Fleet Lists (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Perhaps participants in this debate can come to a consensus on the best redirect/merge target.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:PRESERVE with no hindrance to a subsequent merge if desired. The issue of whether or not the title is an official name is not a matter for AfD and does not effect in any way whether the material should be kept.  Having said that, a redirect to Sydney Trains A set does seem sensible, as does the rename suggested by Fleet Lists. SpinningSpark 22:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect per User:Fleet Lists.Charles (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect appears to be becoming the consensus.Fleet Lists (talk) 06:47, 26 June 2018 (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.