Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy War (locomotive)


 * 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. –MuZemike 01:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Holy War (locomotive)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Are individual locomotives notable? Also Maid marian locomotive. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Individual historic locomotives certainly can be notable, and we have at least 294 articles about them. I wrote an article about one myself.  So far, though, I haven't been able to find significant coverage of this locomotive in reliable sources.  I'll keep looking, though.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  02:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete An individual locomotive COULD be notable, if there were multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage of it, but not every locomotive is automatically or inherently notable, any more than every stationary steam engine, truck or every bus. No indication so far that this one satisfies WP:N. Wikipedia is not a directory of every device that ever existed. Edison (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Edison's reasoning. Aequo (talk) 07:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 08:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * COMMENT: As the nominator clearly meant to nominate Maid marian locomotive as well from his comment, I have added this to the AfD. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect both to Bala Lake Railway. As a note, the third locomotive mentioned there, Alice (locomotive), appears to be notable (if unreferenced). - The Bushranger One ping only 08:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - both meet general notability guidelines, as they are mentioned in multiple reliable sources. Holy War in particularly has the added claim of notability of being the last working steam locomotive in the quarry. Note that I've moved the nominees to Holy War (locomotive) and Maid Marian (locomotive) for consistency.&mdash;An  optimist  on the run! 11:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment "being the last working steam locomotive in the quarry" does not satisfy WP:N or any other notability guideline I can find, any more than being the first, biggest, best, worst, or smallest one there. Where is the significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources? Having a directory listing or having a passing reference is not sufficient. The "Bala Lake Railway" website ref lacks independence, since it promotes the railway and thus the locomotive. What exactly does the book say about it? How many sentences/words? Edison (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note, I've listed this debate at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways.&mdash;An  optimist  on the run! 11:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't move articles while they are at AfD. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Since when has this been policy? It's your opinion essay, which you only wrote this morning.&mdash;An  optimist  on the run! 17:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Never said it was policy. It's just that this seems to be happening a lot lately, and partially breaks the AfD template and AfD closing scripts when it's done. Hence my essay. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, Holy War was the last steam loco working not merely in that particular quarry, but in Wales according to the AA reference and in any British slate quarry according to the Bala railway. It has also been the subject of reports in mainstream railway magazines (no doubt many times, if anyone can easily verify), and has been discussed in books and newspapers. Wheeltapper (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 2 sentences (in a sidebar) stating standard required maintenance? ... not exactly an indepth discussion discussing the Loco's notability. While, I would contend, any quarry having the "last steam locomotive to work in a British slate quarry" would be better notability for the Quarry. Merging it ALL and makeing 1 very comprehensive Article (with no doubts about WP:Notability) would be a more intresting Article. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 07:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The Railway Magazine is a major magazine in its field, albeit a vaguely specialist field, and seems to consider the loco(s) notable enough to write news stories about (OK, it is a short report, but a story below is about Warren Halt railway station and that seems to be worthy of an article). Does anyone have an index to check back for any other mentions? BR standard class 9F 92220 Evening Star has an article, it isn't just part of Swindon Works despite the main reason people know about it (or at least the people who follow these things do). Also, I'm not sure that we can assume that everyone who might want to know about a loco will know where it once worked or where it is located at any given time. Wheeltapper (talk) 10:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF having an article does not affect this Article. The redirs would point them to where all the relevant info about the Loco's and their entire working environment is. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 21:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect to Bala Lake Railway. I just don't see any claim to notability, much as I like steam locomotives, that justifies giving these particular locomotives their own article. They could easily be covered in the article on the railway. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   12:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - While few steam locos this side of Sodor are ever going to be notable from the point of view of the man on the Clapham rail-replacement bus, as someone with an interest in railways I have heard of these two as individual locos (unlike some others listed in the "Preserved narrow gauge steam locomotives of Great Britain" category). Being the "last steam locomotive to work in a British slate quarry" sounds notable to me, but almost by definition such info is going to come from people with an interest in the matter.
 * I think the locos might have moved around to different railways rather than just been at Bala(?), so that might not be the place to merge them. There might a case for a merged article on Hunslet quarry locos?
 * Are there any established guidelines on what makes a loco notable? Googling suggests "Jack the Station Cat and the Great Little Trains Robbery" features Holy War, so there is an "X in popular culture" angle. Plenty of GWR locos seem to have their own pages, yet GWR locos all look the same :-) Wheeltapper (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge & redir to Bala Lake Railway. As much as I like Loco's, I just don't seen enough to support the WP:Notability of each loco's individual Article. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 22:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If the loco were to move to another railway, as steam locos in general sometimes do, would we then need to demerge and merge into that railway's article (if it had one?). Wheeltapper (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with that, If and when it happens. We know the 'pedia will never be finished because all/most Articles continually need updating. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep both, sources used demonstrate that the GNG has been passed. Both locomotives have had extensive coverage in magazines such as Heritage Railway and Steam Railway. Mjroots (talk) 05:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Wheeltapper and User:Mjroots.   Th e S te ve   08:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Yes, convention has been that individual preserved locomotives, especially if they're still operating, are generally considered notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2011 (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.