Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brantham TMD

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. Noting tat the only clear !vote for delete came from the nominator; the only other such also, per policy, suggested an alternative to deletion. A rename discussion, of course, is for the article talk page. (non-admin closure) ——SerialNumber54129 10:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brantham TMD[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has very little notability. Is a train depot that hasn't been finished yet, with no apparent significance. Willbb234 (talk) 10:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Willbb234 (talk) 10:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its well sourced but there is something about it that says to me that it wont be completed. ~~I would say soft delete until something substantial comes through. Nightfury 10:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)~~ Sourcing has improved so happy to change to keep. Nightfury 07:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly update and rename; it is now proposed to be built at Parkeston, although if the level crossing is the reason for this it may be built somewhere else as it is also on the route to the new location. (Harwich to get new depot, East Anglian Daily Times, 6 July 2019) Peter James (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion and renaming are two mutually exclusive outcomes for an administrator to enact. Which one do you actually want? Uncle G (talk) 00:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How do we judge notability? By multiple reliable secondary sources. What do I see here already? This might not be complete yet, but it's way past WP:CRYSTAL. When it is in operation (and whichever site matters much less), it will be a significant aspect of regional rail transport. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've done an update with the reference provided by Peter James, others (particularly my spelling/grammar entourage) are welcome to correct/improve. Okay the underlying entity has relocated but that's part of the history. It will no doubt be renamed in time but we can wait until the new name turns up. The redirect from the old link should help people trying to answer the question: what happened to Brantham TMD?. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as a reader, I enjoyed the infobox that told me about Brantham, per its title, and that its location was Brantham. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I note your deep joy and have tweaked article though as per TOWIE the roads and names are unclear but shiny smooth wheels are expected. They might call the TMD Dorian for all I know.

Keep - well sourced by reliable sources. Passes WP:GNG. Bookscale (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.