Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of SR West Country Class locomotives


 * 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. WjBscribe 16:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

List of SR West Country Class locomotives

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I'm nominating this page and two similar ones (one redirected to main article, but the same in principle (see history) for deletion, because they constitute the kind of excessive detail that is good for specialized fansites, but not really for an encycloepdia. I'm not proposing the deletion of articles on types of locomotives, I'm only proposing to delete all lists (I don't know if there are any beyond these three, these are by one editor and were thus easy to find) of individual locomotives without real historical significance. These articles are unsourced, non notable, not used for navigation between articles or the groupng of articles (a common and good use of lists), but just to give additional details beyond the general info on locomotive types. I fail to see any purpose for this kind of lists. I suppose that these function as a kind of memorial for trainspotters, but then again, WP:NOT for memorials. Fram 09:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Also nominated:
 * List of SR Merchant Navy Class locomotives
 * List of SR Lord Nelson Class Locomotives (now a redirect, but as such also useless)


 * Comment You're in for a world of hurt if you take on the train spotters! Nick mallory 11:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope you intended this as a light hearted joke :) Fram 11:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course it's a light hearted joke. Nick mallory 12:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep You might consider this 'excessive detail' but train records, like cricket ones, are all about excessive detail  You might not find this fascinating but it's exactly the reason why Wikipedia is such a useful resource.  Yes it could be expanded with some extra information but I don't see why this needs to be deleted.  What's wrong with giving 'additional info beyond the general' exactly?  They can be linked better and so forth but they've only just been created.  It's not a memorial, it's the subject itself.  Individual trains in a class all have their own history and importance and just because you fail to see the importance of such lists is no reason to deny them to the rather large number of people who DO see the importance of such things. Nick mallory 11:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, could you then try to explain the importance of such things for those who don't see it? There are tens of thousands of locomotives in the world (past and present), which individual locomotives are notable enough to have their info in a list? All of them? Or only some classes? And then why those? Fram 11:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Some would be worthy of inclusion, some wouldn't be, but your thin end of the wedge argument is a logical fallacy. I'll try to explain their significance as asked by Fram.  These lists link a certain set of trains to a certain set of important places, organisations and and events in British history and culture.  Trains have a significance as individual objects in Britain they simply don't have in America for example, and I say that as someone with no interest in the things. They are far closer to ships in significance than individual cars. This sort of information isn't frivolous, it's exactly what people use wikipedia for and if Wikipedia doesn't provide these more esoteric details then people will start going to the bigger, better encyclopedia that's set up next year in competition.  You don't think that it's significant that trains built just after the Second World War were named after important British fighter Squadrons?  You think that's just the same as a car being stamped number 454653453?  I beg to differ. The fact that nearly all the names are linked to other articles in Wikipedia shows their names are meaningful, they are not random or without significance.  A train is part of the town it is named after just as a ship or a bridge is.  Yes this may not sound logical to you, but that's the situation in Britain and Wikipedia should reflect that.  Nobody is asking you to read or contribute to such articles, only to accept that some things which you see no meaning in do have real meaning for others.   Nick mallory 11:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The "thin edge of the wedge" is not a logical fallacy if you can't explain where you would draw the line and why. On the other hand, claiming that if we don't have this info, people will go to a not existant bigger and better encyclopedia is a logical fallacy. Anyway, I don't mind that an article about a certain class of locomotives contains a paragraph explaining what types of names they got (with some examples), and an explanation of why they got these names. However, I still fail to see why a complete list of all names is needed, and if so, why this list was set up with the explanation of what happened to the locomotive, and not why it had this or that name. Of course if trains are named after well-known things (people, castles, shipping lines, ...) that most of these names will be bluelinks, but that is hardly relevant. I absolutely don't see what your explanation of why they are supposedly important enough to list each and every one of them has to do with the article up for deletion, e.g. List of SR Merchant Navy Class locomotives, which contains none of the info you mention. Fram 12:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Bring on the hurt. This is unreferenced and apparently OR. The lists are not encyclopedic, and it's hard to see them as a contribution to an encyclopedic collection. -- Mikeblas 12:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a hunch that these are not OR, but come from some trainspotters books or magazine (not necessarily a copyvio, just as a source). However, we don't reproduce the catalogue raisonnée for (famous) artists, and we don't reproduce the catalogue raisonnée for classes of locomotives, since these are excessive detail for an encyclopedia and are only good in highly specialized works. Of course I agree with the deletion and with the rest of your reasoning, but I think that OR may be an incorrect argument (unreferenced, certainly, but not necessaryli unverifiable). Fram 12:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In what sense is the article unreferenced? They are clearly referenced at the bottom of the page in the section marked 'References'.  Just because those references come from one of those old book type things, instead of the sparkling interweb, doesn't mean they're not valid. Nick mallory 11:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The articles were unreferenced at the time I wrote that, and List of SR Merchant Navy Class locomotives still is. Fram 12:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Lists such as these provide a fascinating insight into the names and numbers of locomotives, and also to the social history of the period they were introduced.  The names of the West Country Class locomotives are also a testament to the publicity of the Southern Region in naming locomotives after resorts.  And as for OR, have you ever read a copy of the Ian Allan ABC books on locomotives?  Battle of Britain Class as a whole are a testament to the actions British pilots during the conflict, so therefore, the lists are more than merely referencing locomotive names.  I hope that you can see more than what is on the page, and think about your harsh actions. My comment concerning the   Merchant Navy Class list is that they denote that not only were they names for locomotives, but they were named in honour of the Merchant Navy shipping lines who were heavily involved during the conflict.  Therefore, I resent the comment that they are 'memorials' for trainspotters, which shows how misguided some people's perceptions are considering the genre.  They are a part of Britains heritage, and as a result, the world's.  I'm sure that if you asked a member of the shipping lines what he would prefer, he would prefer to keep them.--Bulleid Pacific 12:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge & redirect List of SR West Country Class locomotives and List of SR Merchant Navy Class locomotives to SR West Country Class and SR Merchant Navy Class respectively. These are more than just lists of locomotive numbers; they provide the easiest format for (in these cases) build & withdrawal data, specification details, whether the locomotive still exists or not, and if so which preserved railway it is kept on.  It is encyclopedic information. However, I don't see why it can't be merged in this case; it wouldn't make the articles unwieldy (especially as there's already lists of the preserved locomotives there which could go).  However, Delete the pointless redirect List of SR Lord Nelson Class Locomotives.  Eliminator JR  Talk  13:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps they can be merged in this case, but do we really want this kind of informationN Do we want a list of all +- 300 FM H-16-44 locomotives? All 700 TRAXX locomotives? The 382 locomotives of the USATC S100 Class? All 171 of GWR 4073 Class? Oh wait, we already have that one. Yep, those question marks really learned me a lot about "the social history of the period they were introduced" and were "a fascinating insight into the names and numbers of locomotives". Sorry for the sarcasm, but such remarks (by Bulleid Pacific, above) sound good but don't seem to have much relation to the lists at hand, and the sheer numbers of locomotives make it rather clear that while merge and redirect may seem a good idea at first, in fact it is a bad solution, since such lists, whether independent or included in an article, serve no real purpose. Insight in the naming system can be given by a few choice examples ("the GWR 4073 Clas locomoticves were named for British (?) castles like Thombury Castle and ..."), if needed. A short list of preserved locomotives (if there are indeed only a few surviving ones) may be more interesting, but what is the point of listing tens or hundreds of deleted, interchangeable locomotives? Would anybody know less about the GWR 4073 Class if they didn't know that the 7022 was called Hereford Castle? Fram 14:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that the two types mentioned above are particularly notable in railway history, whereas the S100 Class for example, are less so. (And yes, I'd agree that the list could quite happily disappear from GWR 4073 Class). Unfortunately, that's not particularly helpful (where does the notability bar stand for railway locomtives? Hmm!). But for the most notable types, I don't think it diminishes Wikipedia much to have that information, especially where the lists supply more information that just a locomotive number.  See British Rail Class 55 for a good article with a merged list.  Eliminator JR  Talk  17:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The difference between most of the above and the case in point lies in the fact that they have NAMES, therefore, making each one unique. I can see that your argument may take a macro approach, such 'Why not include a list of every human being who has ever lived on Wikipedia to prove a point?' The difference here is the fact that a steam locomotive is rather more finite than the human race, and therefore, it wouldn't do much for the bandwidth if something limited by the number built was listed in Wikipedia.  The example you have cited above is a key context.  It demonstrates the fact that there WAS an locomotive with the name Hereford Castle, but there wasn't one called Dunstaffnage Castle.  Also, several of the castle class locomotives were renamed throughout their careers, and by documenting this will certainly help to indicate their interchangability as you so eloquently put it.  As for that rather insulting comment above, that I am still willing to forgive you about, the social history comes from the fact that they were marketing ploys by the locomotive companies promoting tourist attractions within their regions.  This regionality can only be demonstrated through the listing of all members in order to prove/disprove this hypothesis. The SR Schools Class V advertised Public Schools, but which ones?  The Princess Coronation Classes denoted members of the British Royal family at the time of building, but whom?  It is only by seeing the names in their entire context that it becomes clear that they are important.  As Williams, Mark stated in On the Rails (Discovery Home and Leisure 2005), "Every locomotive has its own personality."  And please keep the sarcasm to a minimum, I believe you are getting quite heated here judging by your typing mistakes.  It is actions such as this that compromise Wikipedia's potential.--Bulleid Pacific 14:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, but there we disagree. A text (preferably in the main article) describing how the names were used as marketing ploys, with a few examples, is very interesting information. A list of all names without this explanation is pointless, and a list of all names with the explanation is overkill. As for the personality: every house has a personality (and many houses have names as well), every person has a personality, but we don't have or want articles on every house and person. Are they, individually, notable? Are they notable enough to list every single one of them? I doubt it very much. Is information on the numbering and naming systems, and (for older and rare locomotives) information on the status of the few remaining locomotives interesting? Yes, certainly, please add it to all articles about locomotives were applicable! Is information on the total number of locomotives produced, and perhaps some division between types or purposes, interesting, notable, an essential part of the history of the class of locomotives? Again, certainly! But please draw the line there and don't go from the interesting to the repetitive... Again, take a look at FM H-16-44: the tables at the bottom are interesting information: to list the individual locomotives though (never mind if they have names or only numbers) would be too much. On the other hand, GWR 1076 Class is an example of an article that needs a lot of the info removed. The info that locomotive "748 (1873 - 1932, pannier tanks fitted 1919)" is hardly of encyclopedic value. Fram 15:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd disagree even there; while the article needs expanding to explain the context, even that bit about the pannier tanks is potentially useful. The context there isn't "there was a loco without pannier tanks; it later had them fitted"; the context is "by fitting condensors and pannier tanks to the locomotives, it allowed them to run for longer times in tunnels. This allowed the trains to use the Metropolitan Line to reach the Widened Lines, allowing mainline trains to cross London from the north and west to reach the Channel ports without using the congested West London Line and eliminating the bottleneck at Clapham Junction." I would argue that just because an article doesn't at present include this context, doesn't necessarily mean the context doesn't exist -  irides centi   (talk to me!)  12:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete All right, I'm a fan of history, don't get me wrong. But I do not understand the significance of this article. If I have it right, and I think I do, this is just a list of trains that ran from the 1940s -1960s. I'm not sure where they ran as the article does not specify, but it's safe to say that they were used at some point. Am I missing something, or is that really the point of the article? Isn't that comparable to having a list of Boeing 747s used during the 1980s? I don't see the need for this type of information. None of it can be properly sourced, thus it cannot be verified. Also, as it is not sourced, notability cannot be asserted. -- Cy ru s      An dir on   15:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It has been sourced from the book noted in the reference section.
 * Comment One source does not assert notability. Read the following from WP:NOTABILITY: "A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." -- Cy ru s      An dir on   15:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, then how about Ian Allan's ABC books? The Power of the Bulleid Pacifics? I mean how many sources do you require for set data to be referenced?
 * Me personally? I quoted Wikipedia policy. When I checked, the article only had one reference listed. I don't see the others you mentioned listed anywhere. I'm only dealing with the article that is up for deletion right now. Also, sign your posts with 4 tildes ~ . Cy ru s      An dir on   15:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Gosh, someone's got heated there. But Cyrus, he/she does have a point.  If it is set data, then surely only one reference is needed, as multiple referencing is a bit overkill ?--Bulleid Pacific 15:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone, Bulleid Pacific? You're the one that typed it. Are you trying to play two sides here? -- Cy ru s      An dir on   16:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * HeHe lol :) ;), but seriously, split personalities aside, what do YOU think? I've sais what I've had to say on the topic, and so I leave it in your capable hands, but at the end of the day, its supposed to be fun as well as informative, and insulting each other is NOT fun.  As long as you are satisfied with the main article concerning the class in general (Not names/numbers, but descriptions and referencing), then I am happy.  And yes, I can see that I'm trying to float a sinking ship here.  I don't accept your arguments completely, but I suppose the info is only for die hard enthusiasts like myself.  Anyway, sorry for any inconvenience, Au-Revoir.  --Bulleid Pacific 16:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete Well, I do think this kind of extensive list is not encyclopedic enough for Wikipedia, but I wouldn't object to it being elsewhere. OTOH, I do recognize that many naval-ship classes have a list of ships within the class. (and even articles for the ships) But that might be enough of a different situation given that most naval ships are slightly more notable than trains.  I have no objection, however, to a page describing the class itself. FrozenPurpleCube 16:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge. The lists aren't notable enough to form a separate article, but should be included in the articles about the relevant locomotive classes. There are usually multiple reference books that list this data and these should of course be added as properly cited references. The information in the tables is highly relevant for those engaged in historical study not just of the locomotives themselves but also the wider social and historical impact of railways. The history of technical development, adoption and obsolescence is told directly in this data. Locomotive tables are common practice in a large number of the locomotive-class articles. Redirects are not needed because these are unlikely search terms. Gwernol 17:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * First off, with a merge, redirects are needed because otherwise we are not in compliance with the GFDL which requires that a history of edits be kept.  The only way to get around that would be to go to the sources and check for the information itself, effectively recreating that data.  Furthermore, while indeed this information may be useful to historians, Wikipedia isn't a primary source, and as valuable as it may be, might not be suitable for inclusion soley on that basis.  FrozenPurpleCube 18:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of miscellaneous information. I favor having articles about types of locomotives, just as there should be for models of automobiles, but I would likewise not favor a list of 1983 Oldsmobiles manufactured, by vin number. Way too much excessively detailed information. Some of the Keep comments are just "ILIKEIT." Claiming they are encyclopedic because they have names of towns painted on them is no more convincing than saying others are encyclopedic because they have numbers painted on them, or we should list every soldier from WW1 and WW2 because each had both a name AND a number.  Claiming they are encyclopedic because of being in a list in a book would mean I could put my towns phone book in Wikipedia (or at least one so old it is public domain).There are also books listing every soldier in an army in a historic war.  Edison 19:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment On that basis we could delete every article on individual episodes of TV series on the basis that a article on the programme itself has an article. I would argue that the lists nominated provide a certain amount of encyclopedic information and therefore a merge  & redirect rather than a delete is in order - most other locomotive class articles have such lists incorporated into their articles.  Eliminator JR  Talk  21:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Several people would support the deletion of individual episodes of TV series as non-encyclopedic, but that's neither here nor there. The real point is, demonstration of encyclopedic value is not solely in whether the information exists, but in providing an explanation as to the value of such information in an encyclopedia.  All your assertion might mean is that the lists in the locomotive class articles should be removed. FrozenPurpleCube 22:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I would dearly love to have this article kept, as it will serve as a justification for many very long lists that I would like to assemble. But more seriously I am beginning to wonder about the feasibility of a WikiData or WikiLists as a complement to WikiBoooks, DGG 04:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge as above . The lists are valuable, a useful reference tool for anyone researching these classes of loco, but would be better as part of the main articles (as is already done with other classes of steam locomotive) – Tivedshambo (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Change above to Keep. SR West Country Class has recently been promoted as a good article and adding this list may affect this. I'm beginning to think that other classes should have their lists split off in a similar manner, especially for large classes such as LMS Jubilee Class. – Tivedshambo (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all three or at worst merge with no content deletion. I suspect non-West European Wikipedians don't necessarily appreciate just how central the railway network was (and is) to UK & Irish (and French & Italian) culture; train names aren't just generic "that'll do" names but are used by governments, train operating companies etc to make political points and honour individual achievements. (I suspect a lot of people - possibly a majority - would take having a train named after them over a knighthood.) The period these lists cover was probably the most significant in terms of the UK railway network, covering the last days of private ownership, nationalisation and the run-up to the Beeching Axe, against a backdrop of political chaos (with the Attlee, Churchill and Eden governments using the railways as a political football), and should be viewed as not just a piece of trainspotter-cruft but as a document of social history. Wow, that answer went on longer than I intended... -  irides centi   (talk to me!)  10:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Well put. The argument that the names of trains mean no more than the serial numbers of oldsmobiles highlights the cultural dislocation running through this discussion.  The names are not simply random prefixes to lumps of machinery but a living part of British History.  The articles can and will be developed to show this but deleting them as insignificant, while keeping episode guides to every reality TV show made in the last 5 years highlights why Wikipedia isn't taken seriously by anyone over the age of 25.  If 'I like it' isn't an argument for inclusion then 'i don't like it' isn't an argument for deletion. Nick mallory 11:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - these are list of locomotive names, not train names. A locomotive is not a train. – Tivedshambo (talk) 11:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The use is interchangeable here.  Eliminator JR  Talk  11:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Clarification for bemused Americans Unlike the US, where the route has the name, in the UK (with a couple of exceptions like the Flying Scotsman and The Robin Hood) it's the locomotive/train (the two are interchangeable in this context) that carries the name - so, for example, the Twentieth Century Limited in the US could be hauled by any engine and keep the name, whilst the Marston Vale in the UK would refer to the train itself wherever it happened to be, even if its route took it nowhere near Marston (as it has today, going past my house on the Gospel Oak to Barking Line in north London). Even the Hogwarts Express runs on various routes, most going nowhere near Kings Cross. -  irides centi   (talk to me!)  11:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So people say "I'll take the Marston Vale of 9:45", and not "I'll take the train to Barking"? That is ... bizarre. I understand that each train has a name instead of a number, but I wonder if people usually reference trains by their name. It seems like an extremely unlikely method, if you can't know which train will take which route when. "Oh, it's Thursday, I'll guess I'll take the "Winston Churchill". Then I'll be just in time to get the "Princess Anne" in Manchester". Something like that? Fram 12:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I know it sounds bemusing to non-Europeans, but yes - there are people (and not just the diehard trainspotters/rail enthusiast types) who will travel on a particular time/date to ride behind a particular loco -  irides centi   (talk to me!)  13:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm a Belgian and it sounds bemusing to me ;-) Why would you want to travel behind a particular loco if you are not a trainspotter / rail enthusiast type? Fram 13:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Two types: people who want to say they've been on a trip hauled by a particularly famous loco (ranging from Mallard and Gresley's Flying Scotsman through to the Hogwarts Express and Thomas the Tank Engine), and people who want to travel on on the loco/multiple unit named after their town/workplace/school/regiment etc. Yes, like so much UK culture it sounds bizarre to people who aren't used to it, but there is a whole industry behind it. -  irides centi   (talk to me!)  13:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Chaps. A new day of hot debate and trail-blazing awaits us. Well, I usually like to know whats in front, as you now know, Fram. Nowadays its just like that with steam railtours on Network Rail. You just don't seem to realise that there are people who want this sort of detail in Wikipedia to supplement the articles. Therefore it satisfies both the experienced and the novice. Anyway, what happens if someone in Australia for example was interested in the topic, read the main article, and said "I want to know more, but I can't 'cos I don't have access to the relevant literature, and if I move to another website, I'll forget the name of the article." Therefore such lists are a matter of convenience for the interested reader. Are you trying to say that you discriminate aainst the interested reader? I certainly hope not.--Bulleid Pacific 12:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and funnily enough, I've found this: What about this? "Stand-alone lists are a type of article. All articles should include a lead section, and stand-alone lists are no exception. Even when the meaning of the page's title seems obvious, a lead section should be provided which briefly and clearly describes the list.

If the meaning of the list's title seems obvious, e.g. List of dog breeds, the article may open with a simple statement using wikilinks, e.g. "This is a list of dog breeds." If the list's title does not seem obvious, e.g. List of scholastic philosophers, the lead section should clarify the meaning of the title, e.g. "This is a list of philosophers working in the Christian tradition in Western Europe during the medieval period. See also scholasticism."

If dog breeds are alowed in here, then I think locomotive names can be in here also.--Bulleid Pacific 12:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep (or if necessary re-merge). My understanding of these tables is that they were split-out to reduce the size of the main articles, as is recommended practice as I understand it. Since WP 'is not paper' (sorry, can't remember all the shortcuts), why is it not possible for an article to have what is effectively a sub-page containing a specific set (or list) of data, to maintain a concise and attractive main article? (At least one of the relevant main articles here has recently been recognised as a Good Article.) The split-out article should not need to be 'notable' in itself since the main article is already agreed as such (which is not in question here). Readers could then chose whether to follow the link or not. There are numerous pages on WP that are extremely long and would benefit from such subdivision.
 * As for the data itself, the above comments concerning the naming of locomotives (not trains!) for publicity purposes show that it is sufficiently important to include in WP. In the UK, as hinted above, it was, and still is, considered a great honour to have a locomotive (or, more likely these days, a complete multiple unit) named after you or your organisation. When such a naming takes place, often itself an 'event', it is common practice for a replica nameplate to be given to the namesake, and these will be displayed proudly at the RAF airfield, company headquarters, or whatever, as a badge of honour. It really is 'a big deal' in the UK.
 * BTW -- I don't have these reference books myself, and I would rather not have to visit my local library to request a book be put aside for me at some indefinite time in the future, when I should be able to click on the link to the table in WP.
 * EdJogg 13:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point, well made.--Bulleid Pacific 13:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not a personal attack, but merely an undermining of the argument. Lists are useful after all, in whatever context. I mean, one comic book is like any other, isn't it? No. Well its the same for steam locomotives. If you like, each one had a "Personality." --Bulleid Pacific 13:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't mix things which are unrelated, as you do here and above (with the list of Dog Breeds argument). From List guideline: there are three reasons for lists: information, navigation, or development. The latter is not relevant here, but the two lists you seem to use a an argument that the locomotives lists should be kept are from a different category; the locomotives lists are intended solely for information, while the list of comics / dog breeds / ... are intended mainly for navigation. There are no articles for the individual locomotives (and for most of them there never will be, although some locomotives may be notable enough for their own article): there are or should be articles for all entries in the list of dog breeds, comic books, ... As for the personality of the locomotive, I would love to see how you will address the different personalities of these locomotives in these lists with adequate sources. Naughty Tavistock? Obnoxious 257 Squadron? A name does not equal a personality. Fram 13:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, since you asked, 257 Squadron built up a reputation for clockwork running, quite famous for its reliability, which was unusual for an Unrebuilt Bulleid pacific.(www.southernlocomotives.co.uk) Tangmere was naughty when she broke her combination levers on the main line, much to the derision of Network Rail.(Steam Railway, June 2006, page 7)  So yes, they do have their own personalities! Steam has frequently been noted as the closest thing mankind has created through heavy engineering to a living thing.(Pete Waterman on Pete Waterman's Trains, Discovery Channel, 2004) As for sources, check out Steam Railway magazine, Steam World, Heritage Railway and the Southern Locomotives Ltd. Website that gives you plenty of personality.

The list is actually conveying INFORMATION, albeit for rivet counters, but even they have a right to be on here, as my presence indicates. Its too simplistic just to have class background without going through build dates and rebuilding dates, and discriminating against those who want to know more with the facts at their fingertips is not a way to run Wikipedia. I re-iterate: "Therefore such lists are a matter of convenience for the interested reader."


 * On the issue of NAVIGATION, most of the names are linked to other pages in Wikipedia, so one can navigate from this to find out about the places they were named after.

Also check out Clan Line and SR Merchant Navy Class 35027 Port Line for individual locomotive histories. I'm surprised you haven't put these up for deletion, either, because they're "duplicates of the same locomotive."

--Bulleid Pacific 13:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

And if you can't find these online, then it sort of proves the point that such information is here for the convenience of the interested reader. Its like trying to put together a computer without a manual, articles of steam locomotives need such dispensations if they are to work properly. Thats the point of them. Otherwise, let us delete EVERY locomotive-related article on Wikipedia on the basis of having too much specialised data for the interested reader.--Bulleid Pacific 14:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This information is notable, so the lists should stay. They might as well have their own page, to prevent the article about the locomotive class from becoming too long. Dannyboy3 16:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Procedural comment - List of SR Lord Nelson Class Locomotives should be nominated under WP:RFD not AFD. – Tivedshambo (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as per extensive discussion above (I'm not going to reinvent the wheel for you), esp in a British context this sort of data is useful (while to us Brits the US notion of naming every passenger train route is somewhat odd), at the very worst, merge rather than delete. Pickle 20:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for the reasons already given. - Axver 15:13, 19 April 2007 (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.