Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York Central 3001


 * 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

New York Central 3001

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Insufficient coverage of this specific locomotive exists in reliable secondary sources to establish notability. I can only find forums and other primary sources covering this locomotive. It does not justify a standalone article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: Nom. statement implies BEFORE not followed and existing article sources vaguewave dismissed and (The age of steam exhibit: Southwest Railroad Historical Society.; State Fair of Texas.'', oclc=8092591) not found. Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you actually looked at the sources, as I did, you'd see nearly all are railfan sites, online forums, or other self published sources which fail to establish notability. We have: 2 links to rrpicturearchives (SPS), a link to trainorders.com (SPS), a link to rgusrail (SPS), 2 links to texaspacific.org (another SPS), and the museum's own website (does not count towards notability), and finally, there is pocketsights.com, questionable at best. In conclusion, zero secondary sources to establish notability. Maybe do your own due diligence before accusing me of malpractice and blindly voting keep on everything I send to AfD.Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @} I am clear enough of a lot of people's time have been wasted/disruptive by your recent nominations and the fact you'd not even found the book I have mentioned here, nor even bothered to mention that in your attacking response to discredit me means a sore spot may have been reached. I suggest the likely outcome will be that none of your current fives will end up deleted which would be a pretty poor statistics.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know what your problem is, or why you feel the need to target me and cast aspersions about me and call using a regular Wikipedia process "disruptive", but I suggest you cease doing so before I am forced to raise your conduct at ANI. You are the only one wanting to keep Rock Island 866 or Pennsylvania Railroad 4483. It seems to me that you are the one who has reached a sore spot, judging by your blind keep votes on everything I've nominated. One book is not enough to show that something meets notability guidelines, and you should know that. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @: Feel free to raise at ANI. Be aware though my key point is I am monitoring Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Article alerts and you are dominating the AfD section.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is sufficient information in the article specifically about this locomotive. It is too much to be merged into any article about the New York Central railroad, or a museum, or a manufacturer of the type of locomotive.  It seems adequately sourced.  Sure, it is more than I personally care to know about one given locomotive, but I am not a railroad fan and what matters for wikipedia is whether there is substantial coverage of the topic, and I think this meets the threshold. --Doncram (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please explain to me how the sources in the article satisfy notability requirements. Based on my interpretation above, none of the article's sources count towards establishing notability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. While bordering on fancruft, I think it just ducks in under the wire. I suggest keeping it for a while, and revisiting down the road to see if better sources can be found. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:06, 28 October 2021 (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.