British Rail Class 68 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Information from official sources and reliable third party sources has since confirmed the claimed name "Class 68". Extra information is also available, including a reliable source reporting that the specifications of the Class 68 are different to the standard Vossloh Eurolight. DRV is being proposed rather than simply creating a new article to avoid CSD G4. Zombie Aardvark ( talk) 01:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Question Are the sources you are asserting those currently referencing the section in the Vossloh Eurolight article? DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Yes. Zombie Aardvark ( talk) 01:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Usery and close don't see what there is for DRV to review. The initial problem of verification of the classification looks like was resolved during the XFD, the outstanding issue of if there is enough information to build a standalone article seems to be an editorial one. The discussion on the current article talk pages seems to mainly be wanting the original article back, which the original deleting admin offered to usefy on request in their close. The nom should simply ask the admin to userfy it, fix the problems, agree in the current discussion, then move it back into place (or have an admin do it since the redirect will be in the way). -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 07:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC) reply
  • As stated, the DRV is to avoid a potential CSD G4. Zombie Aardvark ( talk) 01:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Well I don't see that can be done without seeing an improved article rather than a vague assertion. Get it userfied, improve it, then bring it back for review if it pleases you. -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 16:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• leaning endorse, at least for now. At any rate it's not going to hurt to leave things in the current state of a redirect to a short section in the article for the manufacturer's classname. I gather that part of the problem is that this is a bit WP:CRYSTALline since these locomotives aren't scheduled to be delivered for six months or so. If that section expands to the point where it's out of proportion to the rest of the article, then a split-out can be justified. But considering that the British subclass is, according to the article, the only one being manufactured for service, it's hard for me to see a split at this time. Mangoe ( talk) 11:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC) reply
  • This incorrect. These locomotives are not the only ones being manufactured. The standard Vossloh Eurolight is already operating in mainland Europe. There is no crystal ballery on the Class 68 as all relevant facts are referenced with reliable third party sources. As stated and as cited in the article, the technical specifications of the standard Eurolight and the UKLight/Class 68 are different. Zombie Aardvark ( talk) 01:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC) reply
    • I'm not seeing evidence of any beyond the British sales, but no doubt you will enlighten me if there be others. Still, we're talking about a section of the main article that is composed of seven short sentences. I'm not seeing the compelling need for anything beyond a redirect now, though of course matters may change. Mangoe ( talk) 12:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The name issue has been resolved, but the other main issue at the AFD was that the article was too short to justify a separate page. If the editors can create a new page with expanded content and more references then CSD G4 will no longer apply. If they cannot, it is not for DRV to overturn the original decision. Spinning Spark 10:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC) reply