Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DWWR 15


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

DWWR 15

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An unnamed, unpreserved locomotive? Included in a few highly specialized books, but lacking actual notability it seems. Infobox is about the general type, article is about an individual locomotive with different specifications, making this rather confusing or unfocused as well. Fram (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 09:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 09:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Comment: Not just one locomotive but a set of several locomotives notable in its day. Once notability is gained always maintained.  Due to categorization it is generally not possible to merge this more than I have at present.  Still ... we need to see what the community says.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You have to show that they were notable in its day. Providing independent sources from its day discussing the DWWR 15. That it existed doesn't make it notable, there have been thousands of locomotives, most of them not remarked upon anywhere but some completist books listing all locomotives. And DWWR 15 is the number for one locomotive, right, not a class? The class doesn't seem to have a name though? Fram (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In this era some companies did not formally talk in terms of a class and some were only beginning to think of standardization and classes. This company did not seem to be one of them.  The article name could be challenged but would need to go to WikiProject Trains for advice.
 * One would expect that for a notable group of locomotives, there would be some standard name to refer to them in reliable sources... Fram (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Concern about application of WP:BEFORE (C) particular C.2. Obviously WP:CSD A7 not applicable here as a product though that to a degree is a loophole.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You have (at least) a week to improve the article or give evidence here of the notability of the subject. But forgive me for not taking your WP:BEFORE concerns too seriously if you have the time to edit Hamburger button instead. You are free to edit whatever you like, but then you shouldn't at the same time complain that you need more time (how much?) before deletion may be considered. Fram (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Because the Hamburger button has touch point with another I have to make RL and other choices. I can also do some things at some locations and on some devices but not on others ... obviously as an admin you can check on that.  I have other things I may fix on the way.
 * DWWR 24 added to this deletion nomination, as it has the exact same problems, with the same book source (not available online), and a total lack of other sources (not even fan fora, personal websites, ...!). This has existed a bit longer, so I guess ythe WP:BEFORE concern doesn't apply here. Fram (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll add a few more as well, there seems to be a whole series of similar articles. Fram (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Also nominated
 * DWWR 42
 * DWWR 50
 * DWWR 55
 * DWWR 4
 * DWWR 67
 * DWWR 13
 * DWWR 17
 * DWWR 2
 * DWWR 11
 * DWWR 52
 * DSER 20
 * Comment: Now I am seeing bias against offline books..... and more WP:BEFORE failure. But at least everything is here together.  For hamburger I need to think.  carefully.  thankyou.  Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep (all): Very concerned if notability is given to preserved locomotive classes and not to other as this presents a very skewed picture. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, notability is not given to preserved classes only, notability is given to all classes which have received significant attention in multiple reliable sources. This happens more often for preserved ones, but destroyed ones can be equally notable. You can compare this to e.g. old houses, where preserved ones are much more likely to be notable, but being preserved is not a requirement, nor is being destroyed in itself a negative point. It is not clear what you actually base your "keep" on, or what the "before" failure is supposed to be. I have searched for sources for all of these, and came up with the same one each time; Clements' "Locomotives of the GSR". And that's it. No other books, no other websites (reliable or not), no news, nothing. Now, more sources may exist, and if so it would be helpful if you presented them. But so far you have asserted that these locomotives were "notable in its day", but you haven't presented a shred of evidence for this. Fram (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To state the obvious the picture of No. 17 with through the wall onto hatch street where the poor drivers arm got amputated is somewhat notable ... I just got a book that fully described incident a couple of days ago (Harcourt Street Line) and am somewhat surprised you did not find that particular one online. As we are talking 1850s-1925 we mostly have offline resources.  Generally with locomotive classes I do the infobox and a one or two liner with the references first; then content later.  And okay, if after a while there's a lot of stubs we can see if its sensible to merge and how best to do wikidata and categories and redirects and things.  Or WikiProject trains loco's could say rubbish ... we don't like what you have done (I think my only concern then would be red-links in Template:Ireland Steam Locomotives are sorted).  In general my priorities are railways should not let to over-dominate settlement articles and within railway pictures of traction are not used to over dominate articles on stations and the like.  I do look for merges on these where I possibly can.  But merging optimizing too early can sometimes leave a nightmare to unpick.  In general I believe Ahrons references pretty much every class.  Obviously IRRS would be helpful but only a proportion are online.  When the Fry Model Railway opens there may be more sources there.  Both 9780904078077 and 9780750988568(Online cost/limited access : appears useful here) might be useful but I haven't seen them.  I'll probably tag a second reference on them in a day or two.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There are many sources about the Harcourt Street crash, but none of them refer to a "DWWR 17". By following breadcrumbs in sources, it seems that this train was actually known as the "Wicklow"? If there is more about this specific one, because of the crash (great photos, but your image has no source given it seems?), then this one can be taken out of this group nomination. Fram (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh no its facebook! The issue to me will always be the driver was seriously injured. On a quick scan of an offline source I had read it as the amputation was on site. There's actually a couple of bits in the facebook I've not seen elsewhere before.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep all of them, as quickly as possible, obviously. WP:GOODFAITH is required by certain editors. Tony May (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand the good faith guideline really. Anyway, any actual policy based reason for your "obvious" keep? Fram (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for demonstrating another WP:GOODFAITH violation with your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, Mr or Ms Fram, and informing me about my lack of knowledge. I guess it's not an obvious keep because it's not obvious to you, correct?  Let's just say obvious to most people and leave it at that.  Tony May (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please check WP:AFDEQ and WP:DISCUSSAFD, especially points like " Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself.", "When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy." and "valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive." Fram (talk) 05:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. The articles appear to all be referenced to multiple independent reliable sources, demonstrating notability. It doesn't surprise me that there are not many online sources for 19th century locomotives from a small railway in a small country - requiring online sources for a topic such of this is the type of systematic bias we should be fighting not encouraging. It might be possible to merge them to an article like Dublin, Wicklow and Wexford rolling stock, but at some point that would need to be split given that it existed for ~80 years and will have operated many different types of vehicle in that period - merging is a discussion that can happen after the AfD is concluded though. Thryduulf (talk) 09:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm always a bit amazed by the claims that looking for online sources for such older subjects is "systemic bias", since in general there are many more 19th century sources available (readable) online than there are for subjects of around 1950 or so. This is a subject from an English speaking country, a technological subject: usually, there are plenty of sources around for the notable stuff. That these have so few sources is troublesome: either they are usually referred to in a differnt way (and the pages then should be moved or changed to reflect this), or else they are not of interest to, well, anyone apparently. When you look at e.g. Belgian State Railways Type 10, you get quite a few hits from all kinds of sources. For something like the DWWR 42, you get nothing. That they are included in one or two books listing basically everything verifies their existence, but is hardly evidence of notability. Fram (talk) 09:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I want to be clear about something: these are individual, unpreserved locomotives? Preserved individual locomotives are notable. Locomotive classes are notable. You could maybe write an article about the rolling stock of the company, or merge with the builder, but this feels like railfan trivia (admittedly what goes for UK articles wouldn't pass muster in the US). There are plenty of books and articles which list all the locomotives a company has ever owned, but that doesn't go toward notability, otherwise we could have single articles on every locomotive ever built. Mackensen (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No. Despite the article names, the articles cover multiple locomotives, e.g. DWWR 42 begins "Dublin, Wicklow and Wexford Railway (DW&WR) 42 to 44 built in 1883 were a set of three 2-4-0T tank locomotives...". The locomotives were not part of a class in the modern sense of the term, as the concept didn't really exist at the time, but the set is roughly analogous to a small class. It would probably make sense to merge the articles but that doesn't require deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * (This was prepared before Thryduulf's response but he beat me ... please read in that content). These are about classes.  To quote Clements/McMahon  isbn 9781906578268 P.130 (hopefully accurately) "The D&SER (and DW&WR)(sic) had no formal system for identifying classes.  In several cases the concept of class was loosely interpreted as there was much diversity within small groups of locomotives of obstensively the same basic type".  The infobox fleet numbers (and hopefully how I've written the lead (but evidently not working on feedback) should indicate I'm talking about classes.  But there will be Billy-few-mates and Billy-no-mates.  Past 1925 In general I've tried to merge classes where practical ... a DWWR 2(2-4-0T) and [DWWR 11]](2-4-2T) might be viable but I've looked at it twice and backed off.  The sort of issues we get into with LNWR 4ft 6in Tank Class / DW&WR 59-64 and LNWR Choopers are examples.  In a #(pre-existing) article attempting (confusingly) to cover two stations Shankill I think people were finally glad I just split them.  I'm just trying to indicate I (in good faith) to merged articles where I think I reasonably comfortable doing so.  The overall guideline for the classes here are from Steam locomotives of Ireland and Template:Ireland Steam Locomotives, and I believe I am making good faith decisions merging classes compared to that guideline.  Compare with pre March 2019 revisions before my recent edits if necessary.  People may also note I am scatteringly developing some article content and I have   isbn:978-0715363614 on order though it might be subject to a Are Ye Right There Michael. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I do not want to repeat the previous comments in detail, but these have been a long accepted type of article, with a reasonable justification. They should not be deleted untess a thorough search through print sources of the period fails to find suitable references, and I suspect such cases will be rare--railroads then were like automobiles now and even what seem to be minor variations attracted a great deal of published discussion. And, after all, NOT PAPER DGG ( talk ) 21:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * While I don't doubt that this will end in keep, can you point to even one independent print source from the period about these? It seems extremely unlikely that they " attracted a great deal of published discussion." and that none of these sources has been made available digitally so far. Fram (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - All, as per the rationales above, no need to rehash them. I don't always agree with what determines notability criteria (e.g. the NFOOTY criteria where someone simply has to appear in a single game in a fully professional league someplace), but I always try to abide by consensus. In this instance, historical consensus has always been to keep articles like this. Onel 5969  TT me 15:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTPAPER. These were large material historical objects.  Old things are always thinner on WP:GNG.  Yes, they were niche, but WP was built to handle this.  There is no PROMO-COI-UDP-POV here that would damage WP; and the articles are well constructed.  No harm in chronicling them. Britishfinance (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2019 (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.