The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was redirect. (non-admin closure) Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tony May/LNER preserved (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft from December 2008 that already seems to have been covered by Locomotives_of_the_London_and_North_Eastern_Railway#Preservation although neither version is sourced. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not needed. Legacypac (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Locomotives of the London and North Eastern Railway. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Locomotives of the London and North Eastern Railway is more than enough to clean up loose ends, no reason to delete, the material in the history may even be useful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to mainspace article. This is the standard way to deal with a duplication in userspace. Please read the instructions at the top of the "Miscellany for deletion" page (the page you are looking at now): "Note that we do not delete user subpages merely to "clean up" userspace. Please only nominate pages that are problematic under our guidelines." And under WP:STALE, stale drafts should only be deleted if "problematic even if blanked," which is not true here.Fagles (talk) 13:34, 6 March 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.