Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LMS Sentinel 7164

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 delete. So Why 13:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LMS Sentinel 7164

There is no indication that this individual locomotive is notable (although its type or class may be). It does not appear to have received substantial coverage in reliable sources. Moreover, the article content is mostly not supported by the cited sources (one of the links is dead), causing the article to fail WP:V and possibly WP:NOR. All pertinent Google hits appear to trace back to Wikipedia. Contested PROD. Sandstein 04:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability shown. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's certainly arcane. In fairness I think the train buff Wikipedian section should be notified. People certainly love their trains planes and automobiles... ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment rail articles such as this are welcomed at the companion wiki Train Spotting World, where the original article has been adopted in case of deletion here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails Notability (vehicles). Will inform WP:UKT of debate. Mjroots (talk) 07:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is non-existent here. JBsupreme (talk) 08:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability established the usual way. Unrealistic to expect as large a web presence from pre-1990 things. Wily D 14:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Established how exactly? I see no "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources", either on the web or on paper. Sandstein 15:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sandstein, how exactly is the notability established? Saying "the usual way" and linking to the general notability guidelines tells noone why this article in particular should be kept. One might as well say "keep" or "delete" without any explanation whatsoever. See this. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What are we, some guy's personal trainspotting log? Fletcher (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with LMS Sentinel 7192 and LMS Sentinels 7160-3 into Sentinel Waggon Works. MilborneOne (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support deleting those two as well. We can't reasonably add descriptions of every individual locomotive this company ever built to its article. Sandstein 06:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will those two articles will also be copied to TSW too? Mjroots (talk) 08:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TSW did copy those two articles last night (and welcomes any other similarly threatened articles). I imagine it would be as difficult to assert their notability here as for the subject of this deletion discussion. I have no opinion to offer on their continued presence here. It does not seem to me to harm WP to have them, but notability is notability. One might ask "What makes a particular engine notable?" though. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we can have descriptions of as many cars as possible, we can do the same for locomotives. ----DanTD (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS on that point. If it as an individual article passes the test for survival, so be it, not otherwise. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really in the same league as The Pokemon Test. ----DanTD (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- A long scrapped loco whose number happens to have been used (misused?) does not deserve an article of its own, but merging will preserve the information. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to where? And the information has already been preserved offwiki, see above. Sandstein 13:53, 15 November 2008 (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.