Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Stirling (railway engineer)


 * 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. Sr13 02:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Stirling (railway engineer)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable. Corvus cornix 22:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - I am not a railway buff, but suspect that some of them may think he was notable.  Peterkingiron 23:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep He designed railway engines, rather than just stood on the footplate stoking the boiler, and is notable for that. Nick mallory 02:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of transportation-related deletions.   -- Peterkingiron 23:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per the above. -- RHaworth 07:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes, Nick M is correct - raiway engineer is used here in the UK context. Notable family aslo.MaltonMan 07:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Historically important British railway engineer with a significant claim to notability, backed up by sources. The article needs work, and could use some stronger references, but that is not a reason to delete. Saying "not notable", without giving a reason, doesn't constitute a deletion argument.AdorableRuffian 13:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable designer of multiple notable products (if you can call a train a product). Nominator hasn't said why he or she believes the subject's not notable. Perhaps a misunderstanding re. American vs. British terminology? -- Charlene 13:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I would support cleanup or even proseline for this article, but there is plenty of notability for the subject to merit the inclusion of this article. Slambo (Speak) 19:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, for all the reasons given above. It would really help if the nominator had at least provided some reasoning as to why the subject is not notable when it seems pretty obvious to me that he is. - Axver 14:00, 30 May 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.