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 List of characters in The Railway Series. The "keep" arguments are not rooted in policies and guidelines. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toby the Tram Engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Dubious stand-alone WP:GNG (my BEFORE also failed to find anything except a passing mention here and there). No reception or analysis, the only non-plot content is found the the "Prototype and backstory" but it seems to be cobbled from WP:SIGCOV-failing mentions, mostly by the show's creator; and it is padded by general history of the real world J70 tram engine (aka GER Class C53). Per ATD I recommend redirecting this to List of characters in The Railway Series; perhaps with a merge of few relevant sentences from the non-plot section. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:44, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Transportation, and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:44, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:47, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notability and popularity of this article is attested by the large number of pages linking to it (see 'What links here'). Redirecting to List of characters in The Railway Series would necessarily obliterate virtually all of the content.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mean as custard (talk • contribs) 06:52, February 19, 2025 (UTC)

I am afraid this argument, a variation of WP:GOOGLEHITS (but on Wikipedia) is not going to get much traction - our standards are much higher than 10-15 years ago where such arguments were considered valid. See WP:ITSPOPULAR. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. This character is perhaps the most recognizable in the series after Thomas. Use of primary references, while raising eyebrows, doesn't necessitate deletion. I do agree with you that this page could use a cleanup though to remove some of the fluff. Kylemahar902 (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nom. Wikipedia links aren't an indicator of notability, and neither are subjective assessments like "recognizability". Astaire (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect Without secondary references, this there is no way to meet the WP:GNG (let alone basic rules like WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV). There is a character list, as an WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft keep. While I agree that resources are few and far between (and lots of primary), but the article is well-written and proper. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ouro WP:ITSHARMLESS is not a very strong argument... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Neither are WP:POPULARPAGE, WP:LOSE, WP:IKNOWIT, etc. I still have not seen any independent SIGCOV of the article subject. Astaire (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Piotrus maybe not, and to be frank I didn't really know how to respond, hence the delay. To be frank, I don't think there is a strong argument for keeping this article outside of the fact that editors have taken their time and effort to compile this, and have done it well. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nom. No Keep argument has made a policy or source based argument, keeping only on WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST and WP:IKNOWIT arguments. Should significant coverage be illustrated I may reconsider but for now this seems better off redirected. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 12:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Fails WP:GNG. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:06, 1 March 2025 (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.