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.
I don't really see why this locomotive deserves a separate article. I feel this content would be better merged into the main article on its class and then sourced.
Blythwood (
talk) 08:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Withdrawn by nominator - OK, fair enough. Thanks for the comments.
Blythwood (
talk) 16:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep practice so far has been that preserved locos either on display or in working order during preservation have been seen as notable. The article does need sourcing, but that shouldn't be too hard.
We don't have an article to merge this to.
Preserved BR Standard Class 4 2-6-0 might do it, but we don't have such an article. I would see it as WP:undue to use the article on the class working under BR as a preservation list.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 12:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)reply
I would also note that this article was only created yesterday. Authors should be given some chance to work on things before they're judged.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 12:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep The article has grown to have more text about the individual article than would be appropriate for an article about the class. Preserved locomotives are usually considered notable enough for inclusion. It still needs references to independent reliable sources, but that shouldn't be too difficult.
Slambo(Speak) 16:24, 16 December 2015 (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.
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.
I don't really see why this locomotive deserves a separate article. I feel this content would be better merged into the main article on its class and then sourced.
Blythwood (
talk) 08:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Withdrawn by nominator - OK, fair enough. Thanks for the comments.
Blythwood (
talk) 16:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep practice so far has been that preserved locos either on display or in working order during preservation have been seen as notable. The article does need sourcing, but that shouldn't be too hard.
We don't have an article to merge this to.
Preserved BR Standard Class 4 2-6-0 might do it, but we don't have such an article. I would see it as WP:undue to use the article on the class working under BR as a preservation list.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 12:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)reply
I would also note that this article was only created yesterday. Authors should be given some chance to work on things before they're judged.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 12:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep The article has grown to have more text about the individual article than would be appropriate for an article about the class. Preserved locomotives are usually considered notable enough for inclusion. It still needs references to independent reliable sources, but that shouldn't be too difficult.
Slambo(Speak) 16:24, 16 December 2015 (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.