Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Rail Class 447

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 merge to Battersea Power Station#Theme park proposal. Sandstein 08:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail Class 447

[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)

Page has had no sources since it was created. With only a single image that shows what the train may have looked like. Possibly fails WP:GNG too. Slender (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, much as I love trains, it's difficult to get excited about three that never got made, and wouldn't have been anything particularly extraordinary if they had. In the world of railway trivia, this is exceedingly trivial. If no one else has an opinion, I'd say safe to deleteElemimele (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete for the reasons stated above.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've conducted a review of newspaper archives, in case the proposed train was for some reason notable at the time, but no details can be found. It is likely that the proposed project was sufficiently notable to meet GNG, but it does not appear like this proposed train for said proposed project is. BilledMammal (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Battersea Power Station#Theme park proposal. I agree that the EMU isn't notable in its own right, but the theme park seems to be (see, for example, this article), and might be worth its own article at some stage. The EMU would have been a significant element of the theme park, and reverting its article to a redlink will create a gap in our currently-comprehensive coverage of UK railway topics. Tevildo (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per above, though I am surprised there haven't been any sources added to this article. I couldn't find any either.
talk) 23:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge per the above. Given the dates, it's most likely that sources will be in specialist magazines for the period rather than online. Thryduulf (talk) 22:44, 6 July 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.