Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of preserved Southern Pacific Railroad rolling stock

List of preserved Southern Pacific Railroad rolling stock

[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)

This is a procedural nomination on behalf of 14.203.182.49 following several requests at WT:AFD and elsewhere:

This article had sources for citations, but only 60% of the article has citations, which means that 40% of the article has no citations. This article also fails WP:GNG for a stand-alone list.

and

The notice "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for stand-alone lists." on that article has been there since May 2017. And nothing has changed for it to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for stand-alone lists.

I am neutral (though obviously the main issue is notability—everything else is fixable). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination. 220.240.159.127 (talk) 09:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you the same person as the IP address that wanted this nominated? User_talk:Extraordinary_Writ#AFD_Request:_List_of_preserved_Southern_Pacific_Railroad_rolling_stock You make the same argument, and they have limited number of edits, then stop before you started with your few edits. So same person I assume. You can't vote delete here, since nominating it is your delete vote. Only vote once. Dream Focus 05:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It happens by default is why. So yeah. 220.240.159.127 (talk) 06:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Transportation, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Got enough blue links to be a valid navigational list. Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists second paragraph. Dream Focus 12:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that the article gets moved to draftspace and can only be let back into the mainspace when the entire list is full of citations. (Meaning that it can only be in the mainspace after it has 100% citations). 220.240.159.127 (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to Dream Focus' point, preserved locomotives as a set are unquestionably notable, but a complete list of them would be unmanageably large so we split them up into logical subsets such as this one. A listing of preserved rolling stock of a notable railway company is also a clearly encyclopaedic aspect of the article about that company, but in this case there are too many to include on the main article so this has been spun out to it's own page for ease of navigation. Thryduulf (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then why was there a notice saying that it may not meet notability guidelines on the article. And it’s been up there since May 2017. So that’s why I’m suggesting it should be deleted instead 220.240.159.127 (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those tags are almost always completely ignored. The problem back 7 years ago, might not be there now. Dream Focus 05:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, I would suggest that the article gets moved to draftspace and can only be let back into the mainspace when the entire list is full of citations. (Meaning that it can only be in the mainspace after it has 100% citations). 220.240.159.127 (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm a bit biased (see my username) but preserved locomotives are a notable topic. See arguments above. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that the article gets moved to draftspace and can only be let back into the mainspace when the entire list is full of citations. (Meaning that it can only be in the mainspace after it has 100% citations). 220.240.159.127 (talk) 04:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the third person you responded with the same bit too. There is no reason to do that. You already stated this. And why not register a username? Dream Focus 05:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - I did suggest delete, now I have struck that vote as I've changed my mind. But I would recommend draftify because it needs more citations to meet GNG for a standalone list. I’m leaning to delete or even draftifying it. 220.240.159.127 (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are 37 references already in the article. Deletion isn't cleanup. Any editing concerns you can discuss on the talk page. Dream Focus 20:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my comment again, I mentioned draftify, so I would suggest that the article gets moved to draftspace and can only be let back into the mainspace when the entire list is full of citations. (Meaning that it can only be in the mainspace after it has 100% citations). 220.240.159.127 (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not how Wikipedia works. WP:NOTPERFECT Dream Focus 05:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THIS ISN'T A JOKE @Dream Focus. This is serious. This isn't a start-class article, nor a stub-class article. It's a list-class article.

Other lists like preserved Boeing aircraft meet the regulations because they have 100% citations. This one article on the other hand does not. 220.240.159.127 (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are new to editing Wikipedia, so need to just stay out of AFDs until you understand things better. You also sound rather young. The notability of an article is not determined by its current state. Everyone else has said to keep it, you the only one arguing nonstop trying to delete/draft it. Nothing gained by that. Dream Focus 06:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or is it? 220.240.159.127 (talk) 10:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think it's a valid topic and valuable for people doing encyclopedic research. While it can use some work, I think this is how we have grown over the years. Thanks!--Kevin Murray (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]