Testwiki:Articles for deletion/London Underground 2013 Stock

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 delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

London Underground 2013 Stock

Template:La (delete) – (View log)

Re-creation of crystal ball violation and also possible hoax, previously deleted via PROD. Official and other reliable sources all indicate Bakerloo train replacement is scheduled for 2019, not 2013 as claimed in this unreferenced article. [1][2][3]. Pontificalibus (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Per nom. Most proably a hoax, as yahoo and google shows no good results for this at all. Oliver Fury, Esq. messageTemplate:•contributions 21:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree completely with the nomination. (I endorsed the prod nomination due to the inconsistency of 1972 stock being withdrawn in 2019, not 2013.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete? - It could be, but not sure. I went on Wikipedia to check out some new plans on London Underground, and then I saw the 2013 stock. It was very short, wthout a infobox and nothing, so I edited it with a infobox, refeences, see also etc. But now I see that there are a lot of websites that say that it is going to be replaced in around 2019. I have been searching for this on Yahoo! and it didn't say something about the 1972 stock being replaced by 2013 stock.
• Delete as flagrant violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Eddie.willers (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete and take London Underground 2014 Stock with it. Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: however, doesn't appear to be a WP:CRYSTAL violation as the article asserts that it definitely will be in service (as opposed to being speculated). Delete nonetheless because google shows nothing with that word grouping.--It's me...Sallicio!^$\oplus$ 02:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have to disagree with It's me...Sallicio!. It is an issue of WP:CRYSTAL because we are talking about an organization with a history (and precedent) of announcing the introduction of a new type rolling stock, only for the launch to be delayed or the entire order to be cancelled. Eddie.willers (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, seems to be just speculation, with no third-party sources to confirm it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC).

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.