Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GE 80-ton switcher


 * 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. The nominator has failed to advance a policy-based reason for deletion and they are the only editor in the discussion who advocates anything other than keeping. Thryduulf (talk) 08:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

GE 80-ton switcher

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fancruft. Graywalls (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per WP:BEFORE, problems that can be solved through normal editing shouldn't be sent here; fancruft is solvable through normal editing, hence is not a reason for deletion. The chances of there being no sources in existence for an American railway locomotive is tiny, and so, as the encyclopedia isn't finished, this should be kept and tagged as relevant.  Alex Noble / 1-2 / TRB  10:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. AfD isn't cleanup. Sources exist and a locomotive model is notable. Mackensen (talk) 12:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I felt WP:PRODUCT as it pertains to "Avoid creating multiple stubs about each individual product (PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator, Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator, R-36 Explosive Space Modulator, etc.)" would be applicable here. Graywalls (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , also see. GE 44-ton switcher. From how I see the guidelines, this is exactly what WP:PRODUCT is addressing. Graywalls (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of WP:PRODUCT being applied to vehicles (airplanes, cars, locomotives). It would make little sense to merge this article into GE Transportation Systems (or wherever), and there's plenty of scope for expansion. Mackensen (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as the nomination does not give a valid, policy-based reason for deletion and so there is no case to answer. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per WP:DEL-REASON The nominator fails to articulate a valid reason for deletion. WP:FANCRUFT is neither a policy nor a guideline...it is simply an essay. Per WP:NEXIST Sources exist and a locomotive model is notable. Lightburst (talk) 23:07, 30 March 2020 (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.