Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Pacific 5472
- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Southern Pacific 5472 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is REFBOMBed, but lacks actual notability. The only non-trivial coverage seems to be the website of the organization that owns the locomotive - and even that only amounts to a paragraph. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
| Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 The organization owns the locomotive
|
|
~ The source discusses the subject directly, but not in great detail (one table and one bullet list) | ✘ No | |
| The organization owns the locomotive
|
|
~ The source discusses the subject directly, but not in great detail (one table and one paragraph) | ✘ No | |
|
|
|
Two sentences
|
✘ No | |
Diesel Era November/December 1996
|
|
|
 Does not appear to be online. The article was 13 pages about the locomotive class in general (500 locomotives); it's not clear how much detail about this specific locomotive is included.
|
? Unknown |
|
|
|
Brief mention
|
✘ No | |
SP 1987/88 Motive Power Pictorial
|
|
Per [1], Shine is the owner/operator of the press, so this is a self-published source.
|
A few sentences
|
✘ No |
| The organization owns the locomotive. This source is a duplicate of source 1.
|
|
~ | ✘ No | |
| Appears to be produced by the organization that owns the locomotive, but no authorship information is present.
|
Document hosted on a file sharing site, with no indication of previous publication
|
~ One paragraph | ? Unknown | |
|
|
Self-published
|
Brief mention
|
✘ No | |
| This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. | ||||
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and California. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- Merge (partial) to Niles Canyon Railway with salient points re: construction/ownership Djflem (talk) 06:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- As I stated when declining this at AfC in September, there really hasn't been any demonstration of notability. The Diesel Era source is the only one that might give points towards GNG, but considering it was about the entire class of hundreds of locomotives, I strongly doubt we have any credit towards GNG here. As such, I am a delete. I would not object to a redirect to Niles Canyon Railway. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. This is one of many articles by the same IP which shows clear GAMING. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete and Salt per nom. I couldn't find any signs that it meets of WP:GNG. I would also suggest making it harder to resurrect given the behaviour detailed in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Australian railroad IP. TarnishedPathtalk 07:25, 15 November 2023 (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.