Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GM GT26CW-2


 * 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   redirect to EMD GT26CW-2. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

GM GT26CW-2

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

content fork of EMD GT26CW-2 Wuh  Wuz  Dat  19:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 'I'd say redirect one to the other, but I don't know which.--Oakshade (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As the locomotive building division of GM was EMD (now Electro-Motive Diesel), and all other EMD locomotive articles are titled "EMD foo", I would say that EMD GT26CW-2 should be the surviving article (hence this AfD discussion). Wuh  Wuz  Dat  00:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason most of these companies licenced GM rather than EMD would directly go to their diesel engines and generators as complete sets (GM didn't care if the bodystyle was copied as long as it had an engine and generator from them). Not only that, but GM also marketed the set for Marine & Driling use. It's somewhat of saying 'you got to go through the big brother to go to the little brother'...or something like that.
 * I changed the article to 'GM' rather than 'EMD' due to research showing most builders (except GMD) having licenced their construction of locomotives from GM, not EMD. I referred this article to GM to reflect the 1970-1980's era of when these units were constructed. The only exception would be from the TCDD GT26CW-2's as those are directly licenced from EMD.

here's two sites I have reference about this: • GT42CWR-MP (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * As both the "EMD___" and "GM___" articles show locomotives license built to this design as late as 2009, and EMD supplied the engines and generators in all of them, I would still say the EMD article should be the survivor, as EMD has not been a part of GM since 2005. In addition, all previous "GM" locomotive articles here are titled "EMD foo", "GMD foo" (for designs exclusively built by General Motors Diesel), "EMC foo" (for locomotives built by EMD's predecessor), or otherwise filed under licensee name, but NOT "GM foo". There is a STRONG precedent here, and I cannot see one persons opinion being enough to break this precedent. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  00:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition, neither of the 2 web pages "referenced" above say a single word about who licensed this design to the builders. I also note that the GM article is a direct copy/paste of the EMD article, without giving credit to all the authors involved in creating the original article over the last 34 months. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  00:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As of today, with various references, I hereby stand corrected by WuhWuzDat. I suggest GM GT26CW-2 should be linked to EMD GT26CW-2. And thank you for recorrecting my three articles I have contributed: GM G22 Series, GM G22C Series & GM GT22 Series. The main reason I linked those as GM rather than EMD was from the controversial Andre Kristopan's GM Locomotive Serial Number Page * but notably the builder Equipamentos Villares S.A. has locomotives with EMD Order Numbers.

Once again, thanks for the corrections! (and yes your contribution to EMD locomotives was a welcoming need). • GT42CWR-MP (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete and Redirect to EMD GT26CW-2; just add in the article (also known as the GM...). —Duncan What I Do / What I Say 06:18, 29 July 2010 (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.