Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LNER

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 keep‎. Owen× ☎ 22:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LNER

[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)

I think the

liquid neutral earthing resistor, which mentions LNER helps. This can be shown by the evidence for the new LNER - ~16,000 and the old one - ~5500. However, the original Great Western Railway will always remain the primary topic over the modern GWR, as shown by many moves at Talk:Great_Western_Railway_(train_operating_company)#Renaming. JuniperChill (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 18:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Disambiguations. Skynxnex (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems like a valid disambig. page. Both the railways under "LNER" are valid search terms. Oaktree b (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for me, if people are searching LNER, they likely mean the current operator, not the old one. I do not want to inconvience them by taking an extra step (just) to look for the modern LNER. I also said the modern LNER has 3x the amount of views compared to the old one so those looking for the old LNER will use the hatnote to do so, that is the purpose of it. JuniperChill (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where on earth is your evidence for this? The historic company is far more famous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: LNER is more likely to refer to the major company which was 1/4 of British railways for 24 years than to a modern company which has operated for the last six years but may be swept away next time the cards are shuffled. A dab page is the solution. PamD 21:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Prefer disambiguation over redirect, this way the user can choose best what article they want to read. Killarnee (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per PamD. Mjroots (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to
WP:RM discussion, not an AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The original proposal was to turn a dab page into a redirect. That is not an RM matter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2024 (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.