Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nyboda depot

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. The article is now supported by WP:RS (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 05:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nyboda depot

[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)

Article on a Swedish garage/depot for subway trains and buses, there are no citations, the references are in Swedish, they are not cite-ish and they are blogs . Devokewater (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sweden. Devokewater (talk) 10:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sources do not have to be in English, but they do need to be reliable, I do not know if they are. Theroadislong (talk) 11:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are blogs. Probably not wrong, but blogs. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aspera was sort of an amateur newspaper for and by people with Asperger syndrome, published by Ågesta folkhögskola (a folk high school, a form of adult education, in this case run by the Salvation Army). The domain seems to have since been taken over by someone else. See the Wayback Machine. I'm not sure that makes any difference here, though. /Julle (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I was going by what I saw at the bottom of the current http://www.aspera.nu/, I have no idea if the orgs are the same or not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Nyboda Depot is a major piece of infrastructure, and has been so for decades. I've expanded the article with a couple of sentences and added better sources. /Julle (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reliable sources have been added. Theroadislong (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Current refs makes a decent case. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has multiple reliable sources coverage so deletion is unnecessary, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reliable sources. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - from what I can read and see, it seems to be fairly important. I'll do some research and get back to you all. Bearian (talk) 00:46, 10 July 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.