Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baltimore and Ohio 4500


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Baltimore and Ohio 4500

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No evidence of notability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Its notibility is being the world's first USRA locomotive, how is that insignificant? Mr. Railroader (talk) 03:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read WP:N. Notability in the Wikipedia sense is different than the dictionary definition of the word. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Which section..? Mr. Railroader (talk) 04:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Oh boy, bare links to a archive.org page. If it was a notable example of the class, it should be kept as an article. I don't see that it's registered on the NRHP... Article needs work. Oaktree b (talk) 13:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think the references, as well as its status as a Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmark, are enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: This source and this one detail the history and design, the Smithsonian provides significant coverage, and this site has a collection of reliable sources under the Class Q-3 (Locobase 1038) section, one of which is already on the page. This is enough to pass WP: GNG. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: I find it hard to understand how this locomotive is not significant and why it does not deserve it's own article. It is one of two pieces that are sole survivors of modern B&O steam power, it is the first USRA light mikado ever produced and done so in 20 days, it is the sole survivor of the entire Q class for the B&O, it is an ASME National Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmark, and it survived being cut up by an gentleman who worked for the B&O early in his life. If the stars had not aligned, this engine never would have been saved. All of the references can be cited and cleaned up but a notification for deletion is way out of line. Please look at the references below as confirmation of information and reasoning. Furthermore, please look at the citation below regarding deletion as the page is being built on and improved. It states: "Competence: Nominators for deletion should demonstrate a reasonable level of competence. This means articles, categories or templates should not be nominated in a routine fashion, nor because one feels too lazy to check for sources, or if the content is still being built or improved.", , ,


 * IP editor, since you seem to be well versed on Wikipedia policy, you should also know that the rgusrail site is a WP:SPS and does not count towards establishing notability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: Per arguments above. Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:29, 25 October 2021 (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.