Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toledo, Peoria and Western Class H-10


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to 4-8-4. Consensus not to retain but split between three options. I've picked this one as Owen references the target is mentioned at the destination, but any editor can either re-target the redirect or merge the content elsewhere if desired. Daniel (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Toledo, Peoria and Western Class H-10

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

Two sources and lacks notability. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters. —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 08:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC) BigSneeze444 (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge pertinent information into Toledo, Peoria and Western Railway would be the best choice. TH1980 (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak delete: The sourced information comes from either a blog or a book that may have been self-published, making the content only questionably acceptable for merging. This is an unlikely and impractical candidate for redirecting, so no on that. There seems to be a general consensus that most train classes are notable in of themselves, but there is a lack of sourcing available on this class in particular that leads me to believe it does not clear GNG. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Redirect to 4-8-4: where it is already mentioned. Owen&times; &#9742;  00:16, 15 December 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.