Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Automatic train protection

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.

Automatic train protection

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn—on reflection, having removed the list, what remains seems to be a viable stub. YorkshireLad (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

[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 is almost entirely a list of accidents allegedly preventable with ATP, which is WP:OR—the sources just cite that the accidents happened, not possible causes/prevention. No such sources seem to exist: there is a list of accidents in the UK that could have been prevented, from the House of Commons Library, but, per a discussion on the article's talk page, most of those shouldn't be included as they're before the technology for ATP existed. YorkshireLad (talk) 20:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad (talk) 20:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but change: I don’t think the article should be deleted. I would say maybe delete the unsourced entries on the list and add more information discussing the technology itself. Slender (talk) 21:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Effectively every entry in the list is unsourced, pretty much: I don't think any of them actually references that ATP could have prevented the accident, though I could be wrong. YorkshireLad (talk) 21:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stubify / wp:tnt - suspect BR's ATP would be notable enough for a proper article, similar to we have on TVM430 and lzb, but this article is a mess. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 21:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would say the information about generic automatic train protection systems should be merged into Train protection system, with this just about BR's system known as ATP. The article can't seem to decide if it's about one or the other. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 21:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete it, but in line with what others have said, a major overhaul of the page is needed. Wolferpedia18 (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've tried to fix the article by deleting the list and adding a stub tag. YorkshireLad (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2020 (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.