Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AC Locomotive Group


 * 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The result was Nomination withdrawn.

AC Locomotive Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Could find no evidence of notability. Only reference is the group's own website, found no coverage in any news media. Oleaster (talk·contribs) 12:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator. Discussion produced sources that show the subject is notable. Oleaster (talk·contribs) 12:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * By "no evidence", did you look in the railway heritage printed press? Or is it just, "I Googled it and most of the first page was their own website, so there can't be much out there"?  I know you've been busy: three days on WP and already 81 articles created. Sorry, pages.  Now it's time to get a few articles deleted and then it'll be off to RfA before the weekend. Obviously no time yet to read WP:IMPERFECT.
 * Yes, this is a crap unreferenced article. That is still no reason to delete it. Once upon a time we used to write articles here. Then other people used to expand articles. Nowadays we don't bother with that tiresome stuff, we just play the Great Wiki Game of pissing all over others' work for fun and profit (Wikimania, 2014). Much more exciting. Much better rewards. You'll have that admin's tin star and shiny purple helmet in no time.
 * As to the notability of the AC loco group, then don't ask me, I'm no RS. But people who do own locos, like the NRM and several of the major loco leasing companies, seem to regard them as substantial enough to be trusted as curators for the electric parts of the national collection. The RCTS list them alongside commercial train operating companies, although it's only a couple of current mainline registered locos, so that clearly doesn't count. Or even just the electric operating companies like ETL, who used the ACLG for heavy maintenance tasks. That would all tend towards suggesting they're a real museum group and worth regarding moderately seriously. Not in the same league as the Belgian Comic Strip Center of course, but just maybe worth a few bytes on Wikipedia, on the off chance that some poor benighted fool with no ambitions for climbing the greasy mop might actually come along one day and work on usefully improving content? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't bite the newbie. I nominated this article in good faith, because the article offered no evidence of notability, and a search of the Google News archive, Books, and Scholar found no coverage of the group. A regular Google search found brief mentions on a number of websites, but nothing that could be considered real coverage by a reliable source. That doesn't mean I'm convinced coverage does not exist, only that I was unable to find it after what I feel to be due diligence. I understood the purpose of this discussion to be to find reasons to keep the article, which you are very welcome to provide. Please don't be too quick to draw conclusions as to my character or purpose, as neither are relevant to this discussion. Oleaster (talk·contribs) 14:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't be so quick to think that because you can do something, it's a constructive thing to do. I don't understand baseball, so I refrain from running amok and deleting baseball articles. It's also pretty clear that there are many ways to ask a community or project for assistance or opinions as to notability. But no, that tempting little AfD button always calls first... It's just so _important_. A whole article vanishes! You've changed things forever! Whee! Andy Dingley (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - In my quick Google search, I found a few references that support the group's notability: The Railway Magazine, Volume 152 (Google Books), also see this article on the magazine's website, Electric Traction News cites the group in a few articles and press releases, RCTS lists their current TOPS locomotive pool codes, as noted above, the National Railway Museum in York uses the society as a resource for parts and to house locomotives (as noted for British Railways electric locomotive Bo-Bo Class 84, No 84001). They even had a locomotive bear the group's name as noted in Electric Railway, Volumes 51-52 (Google Books). I'm sure I could find additional reliable sources with further research. Slambo (Speak) 15:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I found some of these sources before nominating the article, but got hung up on them not being 'significant coverage'. In retrospect that was a silly distinction to make in this case, probably stemming from a misunderstanding of the notability guideline. I'll be withdrawing the nomination. Oleaster (talk·contribs) 12:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:22, 25 October 2014 (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.