Talk:Diesel Trains Ltd
 | This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page: • History of rail transport in Great Britain 1995 to date Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:History of rail transport in Great Britain 1995 to date |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 22 June 2020. The result of the discussion was merge. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Merge proposal edit
@NemesisAT: a very reasonable reversal of the redirect; I agree that there doesn't seem to have been a merge (just a redirect). I wonder, though, whether a more specific target article for the merge might be better. Perhaps History of rail transport in Great Britain 1995 to date? I suggest that because that article already discusses government policy on diesel during that period, and it seems more appropriate to not merge to the rather top-level Rail transport in Great Britain. Klbrain (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry for the slow response, been a bit less active and forgot about this one. I'm not sure either, it could perhaps go towards the bottom of the section "Reform under the Labour government (1997–2010)". NemesisAT (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
I've reverted further attempts to redirect this article without merging any content. I've also added some sources, so there is a case for keeping this as a separate article now IMO NemesisAT (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Irrespective of whether the article has had content added, the consensus of the AfD still stands. Any work to improve the article can continue in draftspace, but it should not just be reinstated into mainspace and the AfD ignored. That editors are scratching to find a logical home to merge the content of this orphan article, does add weight to some of the discussion that the subject matter was always below the notability threshold. The edits in the last 24 hours have added a few cites backing up what was already stated, but did not expand the article in such a way to suggest that an AfD held now would return a different consensus. Stkngjo (talk) 04:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- No, I'd argue the addition of those three sources substantially changed the article enough that the old AfD didn't stand. You also have the wrong idea re notability.
subject matter was always below the notability threshold
isn't correct - per WP:N,The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article.
But as I'm fed up with all of this I've gone ahead and merged it myself. NemesisAT (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- No, I'd argue the addition of those three sources substantially changed the article enough that the old AfD didn't stand. You also have the wrong idea re notability.
- Irrespective of whether the article has had content added, the consensus of the AfD still stands. Any work to improve the article can continue in draftspace, but it should not just be reinstated into mainspace and the AfD ignored. That editors are scratching to find a logical home to merge the content of this orphan article, does add weight to some of the discussion that the subject matter was always below the notability threshold. The edits in the last 24 hours have added a few cites backing up what was already stated, but did not expand the article in such a way to suggest that an AfD held now would return a different consensus. Stkngjo (talk) 04:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)