Content deleted Content added
220.235.238.29 (talk) Removing a mean comment Tag: Reverted |
Undid revision 1185377745 by 220.235.238.29 (talk) please don't remove other people's comments. Tag: Undo |
||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
*<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting|deletion sorting]] lists for the following topics: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Technology|Technology]], [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation|Transportation]], and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/California|California]]. [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 13:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)</small> |
*<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting|deletion sorting]] lists for the following topics: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Technology|Technology]], [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation|Transportation]], and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/California|California]]. [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 13:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)</small> |
||
*:'''Keep:''' @[[User:27.33.233.138|27.33.233.138]] has a point, he has clearly spent lots of hours and tons of research into this article. @[[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] also has a point that Locomotive classes are typically notable, and he says that it's rare for them to fail GNG entirely. Well, I think that it sounds impossible for locomotive classes to fail GNG entirely. [[Special:Contributions/220.235.238.29|220.235.238.29]] ([[User talk:220.235.238.29|talk]]) 20:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC) <small>— [[Special:Contributions/220.235.238.29|220.235.238.29]] ([[User talk:220.235.238.29|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small> |
*:'''Keep:''' @[[User:27.33.233.138|27.33.233.138]] has a point, he has clearly spent lots of hours and tons of research into this article. @[[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] also has a point that Locomotive classes are typically notable, and he says that it's rare for them to fail GNG entirely. Well, I think that it sounds impossible for locomotive classes to fail GNG entirely. [[Special:Contributions/220.235.238.29|220.235.238.29]] ([[User talk:220.235.238.29|talk]]) 20:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC) <small>— [[Special:Contributions/220.235.238.29|220.235.238.29]] ([[User talk:220.235.238.29|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small> |
||
*::You know what else Trainsandotherthings thinks? That you're an extremely obvious sock. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 21:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep:''' It's clearly got notability, plus if you see that there is sourcing issues (if you get what I am trying to say), you could just add the multiple issues template and then we will fix it. Plus, This sounds unfair to delete things that I have spent hours and tons of research into. [[Special:Contributions/27.33.233.138|27.33.233.138]] ([[User talk:27.33.233.138|talk]]) 20:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC) <small>— [[Special:Contributions/27.33.233.138|27.33.233.138]] ([[User talk:27.33.233.138|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small> |
*'''Keep:''' It's clearly got notability, plus if you see that there is sourcing issues (if you get what I am trying to say), you could just add the multiple issues template and then we will fix it. Plus, This sounds unfair to delete things that I have spent hours and tons of research into. [[Special:Contributions/27.33.233.138|27.33.233.138]] ([[User talk:27.33.233.138|talk]]) 20:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC) <small>— [[Special:Contributions/27.33.233.138|27.33.233.138]] ([[User talk:27.33.233.138|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small> |
Revision as of 09:47, 16 November 2023
Southern Pacific Class P-8
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Southern Pacific Class P-8 (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)
While some of the individual train engines in this class appear relatively notable for their careers and survival as museum pieces, the class itself does not share this notability. Most references here rely on passing mentions of the class when describing individual engines, while the two references that might contain greater detail on the class itself are both fairly old self-published texts. Pbritti (talk) 13:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Transportation, and California. Pbritti (talk) 13:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: @27.33.233.138 has a point, he has clearly spent lots of hours and tons of research into this article. @Trainsandotherthings also has a point that Locomotive classes are typically notable, and he says that it's rare for them to fail GNG entirely. Well, I think that it sounds impossible for locomotive classes to fail GNG entirely. 220.235.238.29 (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC) — 220.235.238.29 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- You know what else Trainsandotherthings thinks? That you're an extremely obvious sock. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: @27.33.233.138 has a point, he has clearly spent lots of hours and tons of research into this article. @Trainsandotherthings also has a point that Locomotive classes are typically notable, and he says that it's rare for them to fail GNG entirely. Well, I think that it sounds impossible for locomotive classes to fail GNG entirely. 220.235.238.29 (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC) — 220.235.238.29 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep: It's clearly got notability, plus if you see that there is sourcing issues (if you get what I am trying to say), you could just add the multiple issues template and then we will fix it. Plus, This sounds unfair to delete things that I have spent hours and tons of research into. 27.33.233.138 (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC) — 27.33.233.138 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Locomotive classes are typically notable, and it's quite rare that they fail GNG entirely - books on trains are an entire industry onto themselves (and plenty of books have been written specifically on the Southern Pacific). That being said, my books are almost entirely about more modern locomotives so I can't speak to the notability of this specific class enough to make a formal ruling either way. I disagree with "it's clearly got notability", as the sources are about specific locomotives, not the class as a whole, and notability is not inherited. If the notability were clear, this article wouldn't have ended up at AfD in the first place. What we need are examples of significant coverage of this class (not just individual locomotives within the class) in secondary sources to show notability. Appealing to emotion ("this sounds unfair") will not be sufficient. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: Not notable enough; Google Books shows three books written by the same author, but it mentions the 2472. Otherwise, no sources are available online. Toadette (let's chat together) 06:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- Now I have added a book aimed at SP 2467 that isn’t written by the same author 27.33.233.138 (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC) — 27.33.233.138 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Brian Solomon is a reputable and well-published author, I own a few of his books myself. Assuming good faith that the books do in fact give significant coverage, that would be a strong argument towards a keep. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- I am literally doing my best to spare this article from closure. 27.33.233.138 (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC) — 27.33.233.138 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Now I have added a book aimed at SP 2467 that isn’t written by the same author 27.33.233.138 (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC) — 27.33.233.138 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete and Salt. I was unable to find that WP:GNG was met. This article also shows signs off WP:REFBOMB that I've seen in other articles in the last hour and I have concerns that if/when it is deleted someone may attempt to revive it in manipulative manners despite their being no notability. Refer to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Australian railroad IP for details. TarnishedPathtalk 08:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I can't recall any other instance of a locomotive class (and not even a subtle sub-class) article getting to AfD, let alone deleted. Especially not when two of them were considered for preservation.
- I cannot see any virtue to either of the delete !votes. The idea that adding citations is somehow now a problem on WP, let alone the ludicrous idea that Brian Solomon isn't a reliable source? This is not how we used to work, back when we used to build things. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- It just sounds very stupid to delete something that is aimed at an entire class of locomotives. ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY ARE NEW AND JUST GOT CREATED! 220.235.238.29 (talk) 08:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)