Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MLW M-640


 * 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 Speedy Keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. I'm withdrawing this nomination because I was unaware of other sources when I made it as I was searching for the MLW M-640. Oaktree b has clearly demonstrated other sources. TarnishedPathtalk 04:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

MLW M-640

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This appears to have been WP:REFBOMBed to make it appear more notable than it is. The first, second and fourth citations do not refer to the MLW M-640 at all as far as I can tell. They reference the Canadian Pacific 4744 and then only in passing. Not sure about the third citation. If the third citation does go into any any depth, one in depth citation by itself by itself is not enough to establish notability. Given the track record of this IP user I highly doubt the third citation does reference the subject in an depth, if at all. This does not pass WP:GNG as it has no independent notability outside of the Canadian Railway Museum. Suggest a redirect to Canadian Railway Museum. TarnishedPathtalk 11:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Transportation. TarnishedPathtalk 11:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Also coverage in the CP Corporate history magazine here and, some discussion in an electrical engineering journal (paywalled) . Here's a better link for the museum . An "under the hood" look at the loco  Oaktree b (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Anymore sources? Because I have added the current ones you mentioned into the further reading. Only for you to put them into their respective sentences that they are meant for. 118.210.56.198 (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @118.210.56.198, why are you submitting articles through AfC and then expecting others to come along later and provide sources to establish notability that you haven't been able to add yourself? TarnishedPathtalk 04:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Probably could cobble together a decent article with the new sources I've found Oaktree b (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * About three paragraphs here in Trains magazine Oaktree b (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Does that ever mention the MLW M-640? 118.210.56.198 (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * They mention how it was redone using AC propulsion while keeping the original ALCO. "...Development Corporation, Canadian Pacific led the way in 1984, extensively rebuilding Montreal Locomotive Works M640 4744, a conventional D.C. locomotive, into an A.C.-traction testbed. In November 1984, 4744 emerged from CP Rail's Angus Shop, still with its unique 18cylinder, 4000 h.p. Alco 251 engine, but with its electrical and control systems radically altered. Converted from..." Oaktree b (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll add it to the further reading section 118.210.56.198 (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep: I agree with @Oaktree b we could add the new sources he has found to the article. 118.210.56.198 (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep - meets notability criteria per the sources found by . Netherzone (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2023 (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.