Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glasgow tram 1245

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 redirect to Glasgow_Corporation_Tramways#.22Coronation.22_cars. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glasgow tram 1245

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to be notable and is seemingly insignificant. Snood1205 (talk) 04:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The preservation of this unit is already described at Glasgow_Corporation_Tramways#.22Coronation.22_cars. That seems sufficient as I am not seeing individual notability. (Personal side-note: Memories of standing in a downpour as a small boy with my father watching The Last Night of the Trams as the units, presumably including this one, were driven to Pollokshields.) AllyD (talk) 08:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wp:CRUFT. It doesn't warrant the need for a separate article, unless explicitly notable. Nordic Nightfury 08:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the above mentioned page. Does not need a standalone article.Charles (talk) 09:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Charles. It's not individually notable enough for a standalone article, but given the coverage in the tramways article it's not an unlikely search term. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Charles. Mjroots (talk) 12:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 23:48, 20 December 2016 (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.