Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Trains Remodelled A set

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 delete. All content is apparently already in the main article.  Sandstein  09:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Trains Remodelled A set

Sydney Trains Remodelled A set (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My proposed deletion tag with the following concern has been removed by an IP without explanation:

All of this info would better go on the Sydney Trains A set page, which is already there now. And so, we could either redirect this page there or delete it entirely, but considering the only pages that link to the present page are via Template:NSWLocos and that the title "remodelled A set" seems to be only arbitrary, it would make an implausible redirect topic and thus I am asking for the present page to be removed. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article makes like a news article or press release except it is completely unsourced. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOR. Ajf773 (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious deletion per nomination, and agree a redirect doesn't seem warranted -- Whats new?(talk) 09:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything useful with Sydney Trains A set and delete. No redirect. Definitely not notable in its own right. Aoziwe (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2017 (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.