Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Railways steam locomotives as of 31 December 1967


 * 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The result was   Keep, withdrawn by nominator. Bduke   (Discussion)  01:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

List of British Railways steam locomotives as of 31 December 1967

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Too arcane and dated. I admit that I am pretty ignorant of British railway systems, but this seems like it is too Byzantine of a topic for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article makes perfect sense in the context of Steam locomotives of British Railways, from which it serves as a useful adjunct; the alternative is to merge it back in with that one, but I'm content that they were separated with good cause.  Edward Vielmetti (talk) 04:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Considering something obscure is not an adequate reason to delete it. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Fits with the level of detail on rail-oriented articles and is not just an arbitrary date. AllyD (talk) 10:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Important part of Steam locomotives of British Railways.--MaximilianT (talk) 11:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm no expert with railways, at all, but I know that Britain is important in the history of rail. If I'm reading this right it's details of the locomotives still in operation right at the end of steam's usage on mainline British railways. Whether or not this is the level of detail needed and whether a separate article is needed is one thing, but I seriously doubt this is the kind of material which should be deleted outright. Someoneanother 13:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Withdraw Clearly, I'm missing something here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Before it closes, I think that someone should consider any alternative to the silly name of the article, which I think prompted the nomination in the first place. I don't believe that an article should be deleted merely for having an odd title, but nothing says "obscure" like throwing a phrase like "as of 31 December 1967" into the name of an article.  Mandsford (talk) 17:20, 25 December 2009 (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.