Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GE boxcab


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

GE boxcab

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Filed on behalf of IP 194.223.33.176 per their request. Their reasoning is as follows. This is procedural and I am neutral in this nomination.

"Three sources have failed verification the More Footnotes Needed notice was up since January 2017 and nothing has changed. Even one external link has failed verification. Therefore, all these issues combined make this article fail GNG." The notice "This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations." on that article has been there since January 2017. And nothing has changed for it to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. This article is being taken to AFD due to failure to meeting requrements of a wikipedia article and coupled with that it was originally proposed for deletion, but someone had removed the PROD thinking that they could get away with it. Therefore, AFD is a solution." Star   Mississippi  00:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  Star   Mississippi  00:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think the original nominator says all the sources fail verification because the links are dead, but they can be accessed via the Wayback Machine. References 1, 4, and the external link seem to check out. Reference 2 makes no note of trains and reference 3 doesn’t appear to mention a 120 ton engine (does mention a 118 ton engine for CN with a generator and motor from other models, though). References 3 and 4 are a geocities-style site so I’m not sure if they would be an acceptable WP:RS. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk)  04:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  04:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Most of the article such as:
 * A consortium consisting of ALCO, GE and Ingersoll Rand started series production of the ALCO Boxcabs in 1925. ALCO dropped out of the arrangement in 1928, after acquiring their own diesel engine manufacturer in McIntosh & Seymour and went on to start its own line of diesel switchers. GE and Ingersoll Rand went on with the production of the former ALCO boxcabs, but without ALCO. The locomotives were built in the GE plant in Erie, Pennsylvania, except the unit for Canadian National Railway (CN), which was built by the railroad itself in their workshop. Seventeen examples were built in all.
 * a 60-Ton locomotive with a six-cylinder four-stroke in-line engine of 300 hp
 * a 100-Ton locomotive with two of the same engines as the 60-Ton model)
 * a 120-Ton locomotive with a single six-cylinder 800 hp unit (1 prototype built for Erie Railroad)
 * Don't have any references connected to them. I would suggest that this article:
 * A. gets deleted.
 * or
 * B. instead gets draftified for improvements.
 * 194.223.33.176 (talk) 06:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I am voting for delete anyway 194.223.33.176 (talk) 06:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment: I looked through the wayback machine, specifically http://sbiii.com/boxc1101.html and its self-published meaning the creator of this article has also sourced this article to some dude's self-published website. Look at the bottom of the article and you will see I'm spitting out the truth.
 * 194.223.33.176 (talk) 06:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. but someone had removed the PROD thinking that they could get away with it. I'm that someone, per the edit history and the template I left on Talk:GE boxcab. What I said at the time is that poor sourcing and notability are separate issues. Deletion is not cleanup is only an essay, but a well-regarded one for all that. I'm not a fan of draftifying articles in these cases because it tends to mean fewer eyes on the article. The article needs to be improved, but it's not doing active harm where it is, and no one's alleging that it's grossly inaccurate. IP, just so we're clear, no one, least of all me, disagrees that the sourcing is bad. I just disagree on the remedy. Mackensen (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep Generally in agreement with Mackensen. There is coverage of these locomotives in secondary sources, and I've added one such source to the article. I will add coverage from a second source today as well. What I've found does not contradict the existing article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. After adding archives and checking some of the passages with failed verification tags, I don't see the issue as one of notability. For example, the line "The only surviving GE boxcab is the 100-ton unit built in December 1929 and delivered to the contractor Foley Brothers in January 1930." is very close to the article which says it's the "only surviving 100-ton (nominal - actually 108-ton) oil-electric boxcab". The other hard facts are all present, so changing that sentence to "The only surviving 100-ton GE boxcab is the unit built in December 1929 and delivered to the contractor Foley Brothers in January 1930." would nudge it in line with the cited source. That's a pretty minor change, and indicates a need for cleanup rather than deletion. Rjjiii  (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: Has coverage in reliable sources and the article has been improved. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk)  01:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: Unsubstantiated deletion request by an IP. The community would be better served by improving articles and searching for sources, rather than submitting deletion requests.--Pechristener (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That only holds true if the subject is notable. In this case, it clearly is. But saying that deletion requests are always bad is patently incorrect. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2024 (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.