Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BR Standard 4 2-6-0 76084

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The result was Nomination withdrawn Optimist on the run (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BR Standard 4 2-6-0 76084[edit]

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

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Withdrawn by nominator - OK, fair enough.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]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 12:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 12:24, 15 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. This article desperately needs referencing, but a lack of references is not a reason for an article (aside from a WP:BLP, which this is not) to be deleted. It is WP:CONSENSUS that preserved locomotives are notable. The nominator is reminded that AfD is not for cleanup, that the nominator is expected to have checked to see if problems that could lead to deletion can be fixed, that recommending merger instead of deletion as the nominator is a Speedy Keep criterion, and that nominating an article for deletion within 12 hours of its creation is generally poor form. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:02, 16 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]
I have notified WikiProject Trains and WikiProject UK Railways with notes on their respective talk pages. Slambo (Speak) 16:29, 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.