This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Toys, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of toys on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ToysWikipedia:WikiProject ToysTemplate:WikiProject ToysToys articles
Oppose -- OK, so this article is currently unreferenced, but I was not aware that this alone was sufficient reason to delete an established article, especially one created almost eight years ago! A Google search for "carpet railway" (in quotes) produced about 1700ghits. Most are NOT WP mirrors. This level of presence suggests that the phrase is in colloquial use, and hence is a valid term -- we just haven't found the references yet. (These two links -- [1] and [2] -- use the term in context. Whereas this page shows pictures of 'Birmingham Dribblers' and the text mentions "carpet engine" too -- this from someone who should know what he's talking about!). Birmingham Dribbler should be a redirect, or the new name for the article. Further searching for 'carpet engine' is unhelpful due to level of 'noise'. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I've created the redir under Birmingham Dribbler and would support renaming to that, as it was the more common name - particularly today, as a collectable antique. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I used the external link to make a reference, there is very little published reference G-books "Birmingham Dribbler" for either term, the Birmingham Dribbler seems more popular online. Lack of references tends to get articles deleted as not meeting WP:N, content that can't be validated should be removed per WP:V and WP:OR. A move to Birmingham Dribbler would seem appropriate based on Andy's comment above. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
