Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siding, Walhalla line

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 Walhalla railway line. Tone 04:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Siding, Walhalla line

[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)

A temporary, unnamed railway siding doesn't warrant an article. The sole source is of questionable reliability. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge well really all it warrants is a mention in Walhalla railway line Gnan garra 05:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, if the siding didn't even get a name I don't see how it can meet notability standards. Jumpytoo Talk 21:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Walhalla railway line. Deus et lex (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Walhalla railway line JarrahTree 10:18, 31 August 2020 (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.