Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arlesdale Railway

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 (non-admin closure) Nom a vandal Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating Arlesdale Railway and other articles on Category:Railways of Sodor and Category:The Railway Series locations. These basically are in-universe with no independent sources per WP:FICT. Any notable information should be included on Sodor (fictional island) or The Railway Series. Formdog (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose (deletion)/Keep (articles)-- although the location articles in Category:The Railway Series locations could be merged with the page that describes all the locations, all of the pages mentioned were created as a set of subarticles to describe the various aspects of The Railway Series (mostly by the members of WP:THOMAS),. There are three key reference books that describe matters relating to the stories (by the Rev Awdry, Christopher Awdry and Brian Sibley -- these are usually mentioned under 'sources') and as far as is known, all the information on all of the pages is covered puerly from text obtained from these books (or the stories themselves). As yet, few cited references have been provided, but these were being added as time permitted, there being 'no deadline'. Also, my understanding was that it was not normal policy to nominate mass deletions like this. EdJogg (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment just noticed that the nominator has been indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing and is a self-confessed sock/vandal (see his talk page). Therefore I would suggest that this AFD was raised with malicious intent. EdJogg (talk) 11:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close for procedural reasons There's nothing wrong with nominating multiple items in the same deletion listing, but simply saying that you're listing "other articles" in certain categories is wrong, as we need to have a specific listing of articles being nominated (after all, contents of categories can change easily). I have no opinion on deletion or keeping, and if the nominator wants to see these articles deleted, I have no opposition to them being relisted properly as soon as this is closed, but this nomination needs to be closed as confusing. Nyttend (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the major locations--the series is notable enough. The sources mentioned are sufficient for everything treated in any degree of detail there, which for purposes of sourcing I interpret as more than a name in a list. DGG (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nom a sock. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close for procedural reasons I agree with Nyttend's assessment. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:28, 29 October 2008 (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.