Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brantham TMD (2nd nomination)

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 speedy keep. Closing per WP:SNOW and WP:EARLY. Nominating rationale is not based on any recognizable standard under the deletion process guidelines and there are no supporting !votes for deletion. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brantham TMD

[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 about a proposed depot, that was cancelled before construction commenced. The rolling stock it was intended to be the home depot for is being maintained an existing depot that have been expanded to accommodate.[1][2] Yumosumo (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Nom. has been disruptively interferring with previous AFD log with no edit summary and I am not wasting any more time here: [3] so I am not looking any further or wasting any further time. It was good on the previous AfD and that is sufficient.Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability, not existence, is our inclusion criteria, and this meets those requirements. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 02:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [4] was an attempt to fix after I actioned stage 3 of the AfD process, but it came up with the 2019 debate. Anyway has now been resolved. Despite accusations from one editor that I am seeking to be disruptive, have a conflict of interest and a fixation with the article. None of this is true. I set the article up in 2017, made a further 6 edits in 2019 and then nominated it for AfD in 2021, so 3 sessions in over 3 years, hardly a fixation. I took no part in the 2019 AfD. Appears that said editor is a bit worried that maybe there is a vaild case for deletion, hence their wish to shut the debate down. Yumosumo (talk) 08:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notabillity is not temporary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, but later Merge into the article on the new depot. The article is obviously has WP:CRYSTAL issues, as proved by the fact that it was never built. Black Kite (talk) 08:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:NTEMP --Kemalcan (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bushranger and Kemalcan. casualdejekyll (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2021 (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.