Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geelong and Melbourne Railway Company 0-4-0T Ariel (1855)


 * 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 no consensus. Looks like a borderline case that might have a better chance at surviving a second AfD as an article about the class of locomotives.  Sandstein  16:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Geelong and Melbourne Railway Company 0-4-0T Ariel (1855)

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

Non-notable individual locomotive. There's nowhere near enough coverage of this locomotive for it to be notable or to even write a real article. Cites nothing but a single database. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC) I'm hoping to be able to get more information when I can get access to the Railway Archives (currently not easily accessible to the public). --ThylacineHunter  (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 23:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It is currently a stub for a class of locomotives (that contained only one of that type built). I'll look at expanding it into more of an article with more references in the next day or 2. -- ThylacineHunter  (talk) 06:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems to have been created hastily due to issues re Template talk:Victorian rolling stock#May 2022, and I was hoping to find time soon to pad it out with more information. -- ThylacineHunter  (talk) 06:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I see. It was unclear to me that this was meant to represent a class of locomotive, not merely one particular locomotive. Locomotive classes are generally notable, individual locomotives that aren't preserved are seldom notable. Moving the article name as suggested on the article talk page would be a good solution. I haven't had a chance to check the sources today, but I'll look at them later and if they show the class meets GNG (decent chance this is the case) I will withdraw the AfD. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - seems to be borderline but there appear to be newspaper articles supporting the locomotive class. Deus et lex (talk) 06:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment It's a 150 yr old, small tank engine. Seems to be a "series" of one locomotive. Probably of some interest to those rail geeks (ie. me), but not sure it's wiki notable (EEEEEE I love it!!!!). Oaktree b (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment It's the only vertical boiler locomotive in Victoria, Australia and the 2nd locomotive built in Victoria.--ThylacineHunter  (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay. I don't see how that changes anything. Wikipedia notability is based on significant coverage in reliable sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, to allow ThylacineHunter a chance to find sources. NemesisAT (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Per the discussion above of this actually being a class of locomotives, perhaps it makes sense to draftify this, to allow ThylacineHunter to expand this as time allows. -- Kinu t/c 17:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.