Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manchester Tram number 765


 * 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. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Manchester Tram number 765

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The tram that the article about is not notable. Two book sources, one of which is self-published, does not account for notability. Furthermore, of the three web sources, 1 is self-published/OR and one is generally regarded as a fairly inaccurate source in the enthusiast world - the publisher is known for making errors. The tram in question has not 'done' anything inherently notable - it is just an average preserved tram and does not warrant an encyclopedia entry - especially when trams such as the last traditional tramcar built, the first to be preserved and the oldest surviving Blackpool car (Amongst others) do not have articles and were not allowed articles on notability grounds. The car is deemed "average" in the enthusiast movement - so why is it elevated and made more important by the presence of a Wikipedia article when others do not? I am therefore nominating it for an AFD discussion. Participants may also wish to read an exchange between myself and the creator on the article's talk page for more background. Also, please note that if the AFD results in a 'keep' the article should be moved to it's correct name of "Manchester Corporation Tramways 765".  B  G 7even  15:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: Moved to Manchester Corporation Tramways No.765 as suggested it needed a better title (Msrasnw (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC))
 * Remove the No. - I defined it without because it's never included in the specialist areas. (Will get back to other comments left later today.)  B  G 7even  05:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I think with No. looks nicer, and the car is referred to as No.765 generally and in the body of the article. And might cite that some experts sometines do use No. For this I cite the lead in the article you referred me to. It has an No.. That is:'Southampton Corporation Tramways No. 45 (On Simple). Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 09:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC))
 * No, it's generally referenced as and called "765" as opposed to "No. 765". A useless bit of information backing this up: everyone who I spoke to at Crich Tramway Village (Even non-specialists/enthusiasts) used the tram numbers without the "No.".  B  G 7even 
 * Give it a rest. The semantics of the title are not in question here.  I do actually begin to question the possible personal motive behind this AfD request. --Keith 04:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: Moved again to Manchester Corporation Tramways 765 (Msrasnw (talk) 10:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC))


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete but move a copy to Worldwide Trams Wiki. Not notable enough for Wikipedia under WP:GNG, but certainly worth keeping somewhere. A merge to the article on the tram system may also be appropriate. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think the suggestion of moving the article from wikipedia to a commercial site with which the proposer of the deletion is involved might be viewed as being WP:Spam and or involve a conflict of interest and it is not, I think, appropriate. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC))


 * Merge into Manchester Corporation Tramways, with transwiki if desired. Mjroots (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge what is appropriate to Manchester Metrolink and/or Manchester Corporation Tramways, userify the rest. P.S. I pinged User:Msrasnw on this one. East of Borschov 19:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why merging might not be a good idea: In the debate here and on the article's talk page merging this article with others has been suggested. Suggested merges include Manchester Corporation Tramways, Metrolink (?), Heaton Park Tramway (implicitly), Tramcars of the National Tramway Museum. In addition to its own merits, this diversity indicates to me to have links from most of these to this article is to be preferred to merging and what is more the addition of this whole article to anyone of these pages would not seem to me to be useful to improving those articles in terms of balance and structure. (Msrasnw (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC))


 * Keep - I think an entire book about the topic that's had at least three editions over a 25 year period does show passing WP:GNG. there's other significant coverage to solidify passing GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Despite the fact that it is a self-published book by the owners? As for link 3, we've covered countless other trams - so that means they're all notable as well? 765 is not a notable tram in the slightest! Furthermore, the book on the tram is more about the class of tramcar (Combination/California) than 765 itself - it's just named after 765 as the sole survivor (Does not make it notable; there's over a hundred of sole survivors.  B  G 7even  22:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: The article is sourced and cited and Tram 765 is certainly well known to many in Manchester and all those interested in Manchester trams. (I had also planned to do another article on L53 Eades Reversible Horse Tram at some time) The issue seems to me more about the nature of wikipedia's coverage of specialist areas. I am also worried about the nature of this nomination. The nominator seems to me to think that other specialist wikis and specialist literature with which he is involved are the appropriate place for this article. I think he is claiming as part of his justification for this deletion request that other articles on trams have been turned down by wikipedia (and one is now on Simple Wiki  and thinks this one might go there too). The nominator has also written and plans to write articles on this non-notable tram in specialist literature. (One is one of those cited in this article) Is this a conflict of interest? Are we now supporting these other, sometimes commercial, wikis? Also does it support retention that this article has appeared on the frontpage of wikipedia in a DYK 15 Feb 2010? (I am the article's primary author) (Msrasnw (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC))
 * Comment A K Kirby's book can be seen here: http://www.transportstore.com/book.cfm/10090/1759/Manchesters_Little_Tram_KIRBY_AK and the Publisher is Manchester Transport Museum Society. An image of the Tram (Restored Manchester tram car No. 765 on trailer at Hyde Road Bus Depot open day, 15th October, 1972.  1958/212  1972 - Negative Sheet Number 2/D6/0. [Greater Manchester County] in the 'More than Meets the Eye' collection - is documented on the UK National Archives (nationalarchives.gov.uk) (Msrasnw (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC))


 * Keep The sources provided seem adequate to establish the tenability of the topic. Whether it should be renamed, merged or otherwise amended by ordinary editing is not a matter for AFD. Please see our editing policy which enjoins us to preserve information, just as we preserve antiques like this tramcar.Colonel Warden (talk) 06:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficient sources and coverage in independent, reliable sources to establish notability. Arsenikk (talk)  15:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Details are very specific for this vehicle, of which only 5 were built. Its notability is it still exists, a hundred years (ok 97) after construction, or 60 yrs after closure of the system.   The comment of sources being incorrect is irrelevant unless the contributor is intimating it is total fiction.   The idea of hiving off, or merging the article actually gives some credence towards keep it!  --Keith 10:06, 26 June 2010 (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.