Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LNER Class Y11

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. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LNER Class Y11

[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)

Article tagged as unsourced, and indeed is unsourced, since 2015. Propose merging into another suitable article, as this doesn't appear to meet notability requirements - a search doesn't yield any reliable sources. Danners430 (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Danners430 (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources don't need to be online (and did you check the LNER Encyclopedia link?). I'm not at home right now, but I'm certain that there is information in several books, such as Boddy, M. G.; Fry, E. V.; Hennigan, W.; Hoole, Ken; Yeadon, W. B. (November 1988). Fry, E. V. (ed.). Locomotives of the L.N.E.R., part 10A: Departmental Stock, Locomotive Sheds, Boiler and Tender Numbering. Lincoln: RCTS. ISBN 0-901115-65-7.. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If those are sources, then perfect - makes perfect sense to have them! Unfortunately I don’t have access to them, nor did I know of their existence… and they weren’t in the article anywhere hence the AfD. Would make sense to add them as sources and close this! Danners430 (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge With an existing article, Motor Rail, this article is not notable enough, furthermore, it doesn't have any sources. EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources. Obscure and small in number doesn't mean non-notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though a big supporter of mergers, concluding that this is a reasonable and notable SPINOFF. gidonb (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2024 (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.