Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Whale


 * 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 Speedy Keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (non-admin closure) czar ♔   07:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

George Whale

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unnotable locomotive engineer. Even the class he introduced was just an extension of a previous one. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Definitely notable. This is the man that transformed the LNWR locomotive department, eliminating double-heading; he began the process of replacement of the complicated and inefficient Webb compounds, and "the class he introduced was just an extension of a previous one" is far from the mark. He introduced four new classes, the first of which was an entirely new design, and the other three were based on that one; a fifth was on order at the time of his retirement. These five classes totalled 515 locomotives, and then there were the rebuilds of Webb's locos. Whale's successors, Bowen Cooke and Beames, used Whale's designs as the basis for their own locomotives. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. H. P. M. Beames is the one who introduced one class (LNWR 380 Class) which was "just an extension of a previous one". Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nomination. The pre-Afd version of the article was pretty useless (minnowish?), but it looks much better now. Why do I have the feeling I'm being railroaded? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep.There are a lot of entries for people on Wikipedia that frankly should not be there if you apply this criteria. This is a reasonably good quailty article and well -referenced. It would be a shame to lose it. If people are interested they will read it - I don't think we should lose it. --Davidvaughanwells (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2014 (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.