Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Rail Class 37, 37427


 * 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 per consensus that WP:NOT a directory of all individual locomotives in existence. Sandstein (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

British Rail Class 37, 37427

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The loco isn't that notable, many others have done lots of other things.  BG  7   00:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * COMMENT - I have just found out that another class 37, British Rail Class 37 37025 was redirected, on the same grounds. I have proposed it also for deletion at Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_26  BG  7   14:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Moderate delete I have little to no knowledge of this subject, so I'll make an educated guess and take your word for it in that it's non-notable. Also, there are no sources, poor structure, and I don't see a reason to keep it. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, my points too. There are many locos i could reel off now that are more notable and don't have articles, but i won't bore you! --  BG  7   00:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The fact that the locomotive is named suggests that it is more notable than others. Most locomotives just have numbers. --Eastmain (talk) 00:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Loads of locos have names. Freightliner Pioneer, Freightliner Reliance, Restormel Castle, Tintagel Castle, Pendennis Castle, Totnes Castle, FAB 1, The Mole, Firefly, Tracy Island, The Hood, Parker, Kyrano, Brains, Tin-Tin, Lady Penelope, Jeff Tracy, John Tracy, Gordon Tracy, Alan Tracy, Virgil Tracy, Scott Tracy - that's pretty much every British Rail Class 57. None of them have articles - need I go on?  BG  7   01:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 00:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - The ref checks out and the subject seems notable enough for an article, especially given hobbiest interest in the topic. Doc  Tropics  01:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Alrite then, let's flood Wikipedia with loads of articles on individual locos. It's place is at a fan site such as http://train.spottingworld.com/British Rail Class 37, 37427 not on an encyclopedia. If it must remain then we should at least incorporate it into a different article about lots of class 37s. I myself am a rail enthusiast, and i know lots of other places where I can go. Oh and look at the history and see who wrote it... a user with that loco as their username. I believe that that must count as adverts/spam.
 * Now i'll be off to write articles on 37975, 31414, 66200, D8135, 03084, 50029, 50030 etc.  BG  7   02:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * and that will be the end of the world, right? And how, exactly, are they planning on capitalizing off their diabolical plan to advertise this particular English locomotive?  Perhaps, instead, we could assume that they just REALLY like locomotives, just as plenty of us just REALLY like things that other people don't find notable or interesting. Protonk (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes ok point taken, but no need to be sarcastic! Perhaps we should ask the author to add it to an article such as List of British Rail Class 37s or similar - that would assert notability.  BG  7   12:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete/Neutral Doesn't seem to assert notability from any source listed. Are there books on the subject, or perhaps journals/magazines that could be cited? Protonk (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware, no. There are books on the 37s in general, but not on individual ones. How is this one any more important than all the others of the class, and there were a lot!  BG  7   12:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see anything notable about it, and also fails WP:RS. -- JulesN   Talk  09:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This loco is just one of over three hundred British Rail Class 37s. As an individual loco, it is not notable: nothing in its history stands out as being notable in WP terms. As was said above, the fact that it was given a name does not mean that it is notable, since many hundreds of BR diesel and electric locos have been named over the years. BencherliteTalk 14:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Snowball Delete. While trying to find some notability, I came across this statement from the author "She is one of the most popular 37/4 ever built, due to her reliability.". I'm pretty certain this falls well below the WP:notability standards for wikipedia. A good read is the authors fotopic site,, the section on the left "Why are you obsessed with 37427 when you've never seen her?". I'm not entirely sure what thrash and clag is, but it sounds exciting. MickMacNee (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Exciting"? Overly frothed is what it is.  Oh, and weak delete as Trainspottercruft. Klausness (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: doesn't seem notable enough for a general encyclopaedia. What's so special about this particular Class 37?  --RFBailey (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: There's nothing particularly notable about this locomotive. – Signal head   &lt; T &gt;  17:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable and independent sources to establish notability. In first grade, I rode on Bus 22, but it does not need an encyclopedia article either. Nor does the garbage truck which picks up my trash each week, or the last airplane I flew on. Something having a number or name in no way establishes notability. Edison (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In my world, my bus route 22 holds a certain affection with me, it has nice vehicles and a very interesting route. How dare you besmirch then name of the number 22 bus! Speedy keep on principle!. Seriously, I am wondering whatever happened to the people/admins that had the conjos to close even the most obvious snowballs as snowballs. Maybe wikipedia has become far too beauracratic. MickMacNee (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete -- I am also a rail enthusiast and would have supported a 'keep' if there was anything remotely special about this particular '37'. But the article, while adequately presented to WP standards, does not suggest why this loco might be considered notable. Just being given a name is insufficient: there were hundreds of named diesel locos on BR. It is not even the subject of a preservation appeal or the victim of a notable crash. This just appears to be 'a.n.other loco'. Sorry. EdJogg (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Further to a comment by BG7 earlier, this page has now been 'rescued' to a dedicated page at the Train Spotting World wiki, which should be more than adequate for any fans.EdJogg (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge relevant facts into the Class 37 article (only 37 to wear Scotrail livery etc), then Delete Mjroots (talk) 08:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 *  Speedy delete (WP:CSD) as copyvio of . I would have said delete anyway - whilst locos that have been preserved can be considered notable, there is nothing particularly notable about this loco. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 11:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Change to delete - the copyright holder of the website I quoted seems to be one of the original authors of this article —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 11:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - I do not think we can have articles on individual locos unless they have some particular notability, but would see no objection to its appearing in a list with an external link. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2008 (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.