Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wanamaker, Kempton and Southern 65

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 redirect‎ to Wanamaker, Kempton and Southern Railroad#Motive power. With one exception, all here believe that this individual locomotive does not warrant a separate article. Sandstein 21:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wanamaker, Kempton and Southern 65

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks notability. This internally contradictory or confusing article (e.g. was it donated in 1970, acquired in 1972, or donated in 1972?) has mainly passing mentions, with the only somewhat substantial source a photography book "Classic Locomotives: Steam and Deisel[SIC] Power in 700 Photographs". The actual source for the article is this unreliable site [1] with some text taken literally from it. An editor tried to redirect this page to Wanamaker, Kempton and Southern Railroad#Motive power, which may be a good WP:ATD but needs to be decided here since it has been reversed. Fram (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Transportation, and Pennsylvania. Fram (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wanamaker, Kempton and Southern Railroad#Motive power: I agree with this nomination. From the publicly available sources it is clear that the subject is only mentioned in passing. Given Fram's description of what is contained in the Classic Locomotives book it leaves no doubt to me. The article should redicted as an WP:ATD. TarnishedPath^talk 11:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Generally we have regarded preserved steam locos either in operational condition or with long operational careers in preservation (they do inevitably come and go as boiler tickets expire) to be notable. I see no reason to act otherwise in this case. Sourcing here is adequate, there are no "extraordinary claims" requiring extraordinary sources.

This Afd doesn't just seem to be an WP:IDONTLIKEIT, it's an WP:IDONTLIKEWHOCREATEDIT, see User talk:Trainsandotherthings#Wanamaker, Kempton and Southern 65. That comes down to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143#Australian_railroad_IP, a ban on an unpopular IP editor. This article was not created by an IP. If their allegation is that Insomniac187 (talk · contribs) is a banned sock, then I believe we have an SPI process for dealing with that. The correct response is to investigate that SPI first, not this 'round up the usual suspects' approach. We certainly don't blank existing articles without even discussing that through the article talk:, or by notifying involved editors.

Sourcing here mostly rests on a book by Brian Solomon (we should perhaps have an article on Brian Solomon) who is a very well known railway author and certainly WP:RS. I do not have that particular book, nor has the nominator. The other source is a good but very PRIMARY photo collection on the personal website of one of the long-term drivers of the railroad involved. This is far from a 'passing mention'. Yes, it's PRIMARY. But nor are we making the "extraordinary claims" here mentioned above. For the existence and basic history of a loco on a modern tourist railway, this is adequate sourcing. If US makers like H.K. Porter are anything like the UK makers, there are also plenty of erudite texts that would cover the design of this class and the building records of this batch of locos. If this were a Bagnall or a Stephenson loco, or a small industrial saddle tank here in South Wales, my own bookshelves would source that in moments – but if I can't do that for the US, surely there are other editors who can? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley, please check again who started this AfD. I have nothing at all to do with your aspersions about IPs, socks, dislike of the creator, ... Once that is done, I will address your other misconceptions or misleading statements. Fram (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on the article and the AfD, not personalising this into attacks on anyone who disagrees with it. Nor have I even mentioned you. Not everything on WP is about you. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Please comment on the article and the AfD, not personalising this into attacks on anyone who disagrees with it." after your previous post about the nom and the nature of this AfD? Oh well, that goes with your claim about "the other source" being "far from a passing mention". That sources wasn't in the article so wasn't included in my comment about passing mentions; as you well know, as I brought this very source to your attention in the AfD nom, and you then added it to the article. It is a source by a WK&S volunteer, so has no influence on the notability question beneath this AfD. The question is not about verifiability, not about "extraordinary claims", but about WP:NOTABILITY. The Solomon book, where you so impersonally stated "I do not have that particular book, nor has the nominator"; er, it is available right here, at least for me I can access the text about the WK&S 65 without any problems. Fram (talk) 14:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are in the US. I am not. Google Books for me does not let me read the relevant pages of that book, I cannot know how much of it you can see. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously accusing me of wanting to delete articles solely based on their author? That is not my stance. I offered my opinion on the subject's notability, and that had zero to do with who authored it. I don't care if Vladimir Putin personally wrote the article, I'm going to evaluate it based on how it meets or does not meet GNG. Based on my interpretation of our policies and guidelines, it does not meet GNG. Please strike your aspersion directed against me. I am also very disappointed you thought it appropriate to link a discussion on my talk page and implicitly make accusations against me without even having the decency to notify me. I would much like if you took your own advice: "Please comment on the article and the AfD, not personalising this into attacks on anyone who disagrees with it."

As for the sourcing, since you linked my talk, you should have seen that Solomon's book dedicates two sentences to the locomotive. That's not significant coverage. I never asserted he was not a reliable source, in fact I have used his works in a number of my articles. I asserted the coverage does not meet WP:SIGCOV. I am disappointed that you ignore that. I expected better from an editor of your tenure than this.

Anyways, redirect to Wanamaker, Kempton and Southern Railroad. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, get off your high horse. You have already AfD'ed this article creator's other articles at Union Pacific 9000 and Dieselmotive Company, Inc.. I am not required to notify you and if you're busy discussing article deletion with another editor there are tells in the writing style that match the IP's editing style (and not through either AfD or even the article's talk: page) then I expect you to be aware of our regular practices that you'll at least notice an AfD page on it.

I don't even particularly disagree with you. If think this IP is socking, then file an SPI and do it properly. But we don't work by suspicion, and we have an AfD process, not just a secret handshake somewhere away from scrutiny. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I AfD'd them because they weren't notable. I found these articles in New Page Patrol, where I focus on transportation related articles. A scan of my contributions would make this quite obvious. I did not reference any sort of claims of socking (or anything to do with the article creator) in either of those AfDs, because I actually agree that doing so would be inappropriate. I was asked for my personal opinion and I gave it. What I did not do was advocate for targeting this article solely based on who wrote it. My arguments were based on notability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect unless an editor can provide references to actual genuine independent reliable sources that devote significant coverage to this particular locomotive. Speculating about the existence of plenty of erudite texts is of no value to this discussion, and even if such hypothetical texts existed and covered the design of this class and the building records of this batch of locos, they would be of no value in establishing the notability of this specific locomotive as opposed to a class of locomotives. Cullen328 (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to where? The completely unsourced article it was pointed to previously? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Good point. Delete then.~~ Cullen328 (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I have added three references to Wanamaker, Kempton and Southern Railroad, so it is now an acceptable redirect target. Cullen328 (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good job. I was considering if I should change my !vote to delete also. Now a redirect is clear. TarnishedPath^talk 23:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - there aren't sufficient independent, published sources to justify a standalone article, but there is useful sourced material that should be merged into Wanamaker, Kempton and Southern Railroad, and then redirect this link to that article. 00:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

Wanamaker, Kempton and Southern 65

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.