Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of preserved British Rail diesel 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 keep. Very clear consensus to keep and there doesn't appear to be a highly legitimate reason to delete. (non-admin closure) Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

List of preserved British Rail diesel locomotives

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Only cite added when article was created in 2009, all of the 200 edits in the ensuing 12 years has been WP:OR. Unless all entries can be reliably sourced, article should go. Iemeer18 (talk) 04:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * keep I think; I have no particularly strong feelings on whether the list should exist, but I don't think current lack of references is an adequate reason for deletion. We should delete if references could not conceivably be found. Preserved railways tend to attract a bit of press interest, at least locally, and it should be possible to verify the existence of almost all of these locomotives, if anyone wishes to. In fact, for some, we don't even need to look very far. The first in the list, British_Rail_Class_D2/10 has a referenced statement in its own article that two are preserved (it's a book that I don't have, so I can't check it genuinely supports the statement). Unfortunately the onus is on the deleter to demonstrate that sources don't exist, not on anyone else to insert them, and I'm not sure I have the energy to track down such a huge number. Taking a completely random example (honestly, I just picked it) British_Rail_Class_25, this also has, in its own article, a table of preserved examples, with no less than 12 references! (if anyone wishes to argue that the list is not necessary on other grounds, feel free!) Elemimele (talk) 05:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. I spot checked one entry from each section by looking at the linked article, and every single one matched the figure given in this list, sometimes explicitly sourced sometimes not, but this information is very easily sourced so the nominator's concerns are not relevant. Given nobody appears to be disputing the notability of the list I think we're done here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Per Thryduulf. Slender (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Valid navigational list.   D r e a m Focus  13:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per above users. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Thryduulf. --Whiteguru (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per above comments. Waddles 🗩 🖉</b> 23:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">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.