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. Seems like this discussion moved towards keep after the relist, with the key arguments being that coverage still occurred long after the fact and thus WP:SUSTAINED is satisfied. Concerns about the lack of recent edits are not really within the purview of deletion discussions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Traingate

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Despite the extensive contemporaneous coverage, this page has been dormant for three years now. The last time the AfD issue was raised, the admin punted with no consensus to work from, though the discussion "tended" towards deletion. Since, this incident has received almost no coverage in the British press and virtually none internationally. This event has very little influence on British politics, Labour, and Corbyn today, and thus I believe it should be deleted. Tedfitzy (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tedfitzy (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say keep but massively trim, for example the whole of the "Reactions" section can probably be deleted. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an obvious case of WP:NOT#NEWS, as should have been done when this was first created. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I still would like to "delete" but I will be cutting the entire "Reactions" section. We can proceed from there. Tedfitzy (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a significant event in Corbyn's political career. Could be trimmed by all means. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: we're at a deadlock here with 2 in the keep camp and 2 in the delete camp - let's see if another week can give us more conversation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 02:29, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - coverage in reliable sources from the years after the incident occurred are trivial to find. For example it was the subject of an entire chapter in a 2017 book about Richard Branson and several pages of this 2018 book on Corbyn's career. Indeed, "Traingate" as a political phenomenon lasted for over a year since the incident occurred in 2016 but Virgin's release of footage of the incident occurred in 2017. Per WP:NOTTEMPORARY once gained notability cannot be lost, and so it is with this incident - it received WP:SUSTAINED coverage over a period of years and, having become notable, will never become "not notable" due to the page being dormant. Also, WP:NEGLECT is not a good reason to delete. FOARP (talk) 08:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination's claim is false. There was a second round of coverage in 2017 when more CCTV footage was released. And there's now accounts of the matter in books, as noted by FOARP. Andrew D. (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also think you are correct to have restored the material which was recently removed in the "massive trimming" on 3 June, while the article is still being discussed here. A major trim may still be warranted, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:29, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This was a rather ridiculous stunt by Corbyn out of peak because a train was too full for him and his assistant to sit together. It may be useful to trim it somewhat, as it is too long for the teacup storm that it was. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NEVENT, coverage over an extended period of time from reliable sourcess, to trim or not to trim (that is the question:)), is irrelevant to this afd and should be discussed at the talkpage. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:22, 14 June 2019 (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.