Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LMS Ivatt Class 2 2-6-2T 41241


 * 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. There is clear consensus that this content should be kept, probably in this form, but perhaps in another. I am closing this as keep but this close should not forestall any proposed merge - different people had thoughts about the right way to potentially merge (or reasons why not to do it at all) and that process can continue/finish, if an editor feels it important, outside of AfD. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

LMS Ivatt Class 2 2-6-2T 41241

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unnotable UK locomotive. (A higher level article for the locomotive class exists - LMS_Ivatt_Class_2_2-6-2T). Author was banned for repeatedly ignoring basic WP policies and guidelines. -- John (Daytona2 &middot;&#32; Talk &middot;&#32; Contribs) 09:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages due to the same reason:
 * Merge into higher class article or Snow keep as it seems as if the article is talking about an individual unit built and if it is still around today should have some notability. no refs in article, but I've found one online (and there could be more) https://kwvr.co.uk/steam-train/steam-train-3/ which could help solidify notability. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 10:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * -- John (Daytona2 &middot;&#32; Talk &middot;&#32; Contribs) 10:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  10:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge into LMS Ivatt Class 2 2-6-2T, or weak keep if sources from an additional location (beyond KWVR) are found. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * agreed i feel like the KWVR sources are a bit weak, and i don't know for sure but the language between the two is way too similar to be an accident and not some plagirism, felt like it was the best to add them to article nontheless Epluribusunumyall (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd also add I'd be happy with this being merged into a preservation article, rather than the main class article. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, oppose merge(to main class article). Preserved engines acquire their own unique tracked history akin to a sports person and best dealt with as a subpage of the class to avoid WP:UNDUE.  Its also why I oppose a merge, the Preservation of the class is already at or perhaps even beyond the WP:UNDUE point in the main article and a merge makes it worse.  I am far also far from convinced the redirect would be any additional help in finding the main article.  With regards to the nomination the creator was in good standing at the time of the creation, and could have been created by anybody.  and despite to work with them (main issue was promotion of own images if I recall) that was not possible.  I do note effort is better spent improving and citing the main article.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Per 's update below its the merge to main class I'm strongly opposing ... I'm not unhappy, mabe neutral or weak one way or the other, if the preserved members of the class have their own combined article. btw: I think 41241 hade a brief (blink and you'd miss it) appearance on BBC4 last night on ("The Golden Age of Steam Railways", ep2. Branching out, circa 00:52s) . Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. The encyclopaedic information about these locomotives would be WP:UNDUE in the more general article, which as noted is already bordering on being unduly biased towards preservation. Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to merging to a combined LMS Ivatt Class 2 2-6-2T in preservation or Preserved LMS Ivatt Class 2 2-6-2T locomotives (or similarly titled article) as suggested below. I explicitly oppose merging or redirecting to the main article about the class. Thryduulf (talk) 10:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would doubt the independent noteworthiness of this loco, although certainly there are some locos which would be legitimate to have an article about. If the class article is suffering from undue weight of preservation info, could an article LMS Ivatt Class 2 2-6-2T in preservation or something be created? -mattbuck (Talk) 13:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, oppose merge. They are both preserved locomotives, and therefore both are notable. — Iain Bell (talk) 09:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow the logic there. Something being preserved in a museum does not make it independently notable, which is the problem here. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Individual preserved locos are more than examples of the class, have a preservation and operational history that is often well researched and documented, and of interest to many within the specialism. welsh (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I certainly agree it is of interest to selected people, but my concern is is each individual loco really notable enough for a standalone Wikipedia article, especially if the information is already documented elsewhere. Wikipedia is WP:NOTWEBHOST after all. I wouldn't be opposed to s idea of a preservation page for the class though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This article does not assert this loco's independent noteworthiness - every single source is the K&WV website. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 *  Merge Redirect both to LMS Ivatt Class 2 2-6-2T. Not all preserved locos are notable. Its like saying in theory Class 56 no. 56006 should get an article, yet it doesn't have one, because its not particularly notable! If all were last of a class then maybe, but a weak maybe at that. Nightfury 13:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * how do you feel about the issues raised regarding undue weight if merged into the main article? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , having studied target there should be more than enough info on it to explain both subjects. Noting two other preserved articles do not have articles. Nightfury 21:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge - the article does not pass WP:GNG, it in no way explains why this locomotive is notable apart from the fact it still exists. If there are UNDUE issues with merging to the parent article then create a new article about the class in preservation. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete We don't need articles on every loco.Denzil1963 (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The need for the !voter to use the majestic plural on a WP:VAGUEWAVE reminds me I must look at updating that article with this reference:. More seriously I suppose the is trying to say he does not believe articles are needed on the two locomotives nominated for deletion here, and various other ones as well.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect or merge. WP:MILL object; anorakcruft of minute real-world significance. This locomotive is covered in sources as an example of its class, and we should do so too: at appropriate, much reduced length, in the respective class article.  Sandstein   14:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 17:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The article sources are adequete and Djm-leighpark, welsh and Thryduulf make a reasonable case for it remaining a stand alone article instead of a merge.  // Timothy ::  talk  13:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as meeting our notability guide with references. Encyclopedic content. Wm335td (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2020 (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.