Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Thomas & Friends narrow-gauge engines


 * 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 delete.  JGHowes   talk  01:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

List of Thomas & Friends narrow-gauge engines

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Relatively insignificant part of Thomas the Tank Engine. There is already a Thomas Wikia where these kinds of things fit better. Delete per precedence at Articles for deletion/List of Static supporting characters and others. Geschichte (talk) 08:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. About as fancrufty as this similar article that was recently deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Thomas & Friends rolling stock. Ajf773 (talk) 08:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - no indication of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject Spiderone  10:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, seriously, what is with all the Thomas the Tank Engine fancruft? Regardless, I imagine we could just Redirect this to List of Thomas & Friends characters. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep We should not delete this to favour Wikia as that would not serve our readership so well. For example, I happened to read a page of theirs about the Fat Controller which is full of vandalism.  We can do this better. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, a notable topic and one of the main pages in Wikipedia's The Railway Series collection. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly how it is so notable? Foxnpichu (talk) 16:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. More fancruft that does not meet WP:LISTN, WP:CLN, or have WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. Very similar to the deleted article Articles for deletion/List of Thomas & Friends rolling stock.  // Timothy ::  talk  14:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep I'm fed up of the anti Thomas deletionism on Wikipedia. We already lost Diesel's article and now the narrow gauge engines, which are fictionally separate from the main line characters are under threat too. The scandal of advert free Wikipedia articles being converted to ad laden Fandom articles must also be exposed. 2A01:4C8:72:A70B:99A2:1D43:3DF7:DB54 (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I recently reduced the article to it's current state. It had sat for more than a decade with no sources at all, and was full of unverifiable and severely biased writing, often from a fan point of view. As it stands the article is well below Wikipedia's thresholds for quality, notability and verifiability. If no sources have been added in the 13 years since the article was created, I think there is no likelihood that it will ever be sourced or reach the necessary quality to be included. Laplorfill (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete- as has been pointed out, this is unsourced fancruft. Reyk YO! 16:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - The current article is completely unsourced. Searches using various terms and variations also did not turn up anything substantial about this grouping of characters that would allow this list to pass WP:LISTN.  The "Keep" votes above are asserting this article's importance, but none of them have actually shown that reliable, secondary sources exist, which is the most basic tenet of Verifiability and the WP:GNG.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Worse, the three keep votes are (in order): "Wikia is so crap we should do their work for them", "WP:ITSNOTABLE", and "WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT". Reyk YO! 16:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - does not seem like a notable topic for a stand-alone list. does seem ripe for transfer to a Wikia somewhere, though. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 17:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete What's with all the Thomas the Tank Engine fancruft, indeed? It's obviously a notable show but not everything is notable that is related to it! These things are better suited to the TTTE Fandom Wiki. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is about articles with high quality references and real life relevance, not unverifiable fan research of minor characters. Delete as cruft more fitting for Wikia.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:TRIVIA and nothing but. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and incorporate into some other Thomas-related article. It seems a little insignificant on its own. Félix An (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete there are a lot of these articles and I do see peoples' effort. But those efforts would be better channelled into creating content that follows Wikipedia's guidelines. One broad article will always pass our quality checks where several non notable articles and lists do not. It's possible to imagine this rewritten as a short paragraph ("The main narrow gauge engines are X, Y, and Z") in an article about the series. Though we don't generally write extended sections (let alone articles) that are exclusively sourced to primary sources, an article with third party sources will always welcome some amount of primary sourced material. I wouldn't object to a summary and merge if someone could find a target. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2020 (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.