Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No. 6207; A Study in Steel


 * 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 no consensus. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

No. 6207; A Study in Steel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of any notability in article or online. Fram (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. –  The Grid  ( talk )  14:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. –  The Grid  ( talk )  14:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. –  The Grid  ( talk )  14:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. Looking at online sources, the subject of the article has received coverage from Hackaday, Silodrome , The Old Motor , and has an entry with the British Film Institute . Looking at book sources, the film was reviewed and discussed in the books Railways in the Cinema by John Huntley (p. 96) and Volume 28 of the London and North Eastern Railway Magazine (p. 145). According to Google Books, the film is also mentioned in other books that I don't have access to. For a film from 1935, offline sources are also likely to exist. MarkZusab (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you user:MarkZusab for your kind explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony May (talk • contribs)
 * The two Google book links are passing mentions. The other three diffs look like personal websites / blogs to me (but I may be wrong about these, feel free to inform me better). The BFI lists (or tries to list) every film made in Britain, it is not an indication of notability (just like a national library collects and documents every book, pamphlet, ... from a country. Fram (talk) 08:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep It's well-known in two domains of interest: both film-making (and the British mid-century documentary tradition) and also railway history. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * All sources but the BFI seem to be from "railway history" (with doubts about the reliability of the indepth sources), so what's the evidence that it is well known in the film making domain? Fram (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As you have already decided to rule out the BFI as RS (!), there seems to be little point in discussing anything with you. Fortunately this isn't your decision to make.
 * This is better known through the railway community, that's certainly true. In fact, it's sometimes described in film histories as a 1968 film, by the better-known British Transport Films unit and Peter Hopkinson gets credited as having written it. It was re-released with BR / BTF branding in 1968 and I think some of the narration text was changed. An oddly anachronistic re-release anyway, with BR torn between crediting the LMS (which disappeared 20 years earlier) and the loco itself (with the withdrawal of steam that same year).
 * But if you look through histories of British documentary film for the 'Grierson era' you should find plenty. There's a newish (couple of years ago) big thick history of such by James Chapman, New History of British Documentary and I expect that would be a good source. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a very good source to strengthen my delete opinion. "6207" doesn't appear in this book apparently... Fram (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but searching the Belgian copy of Google books, on a book that's still in copyright (and so the whole text isn't there) is the same thing as reading the book? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, of course - this is about ANI, isn't it?  Makes sense now.  So anything I say here, you're just going to disagree anyway. Sorry, I hadn't recognised the names. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Or you could, you know, for example state the page(s) where the book has info on this documentary? That would be more helpful than unwarranted snark. In what way is this AfD supposedly about ANI? Oh, and I didn't rule out the BFI as a reliable source, please don't make such unwarranted claims. It is a perfectly reliable source, but it doesn't convey any notability, which is what this discussion is about after all. Fram (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 14:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep, due to the age of the film, the google approach is not effective. I would go to the text books as there would be sufficient info in it there. Looking online though, there is quite a lot of interest in this film. That's a very good indicator. I think John Watt did some other documentaries as well. Karl Twist (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide the sources you base this opinion on? Or perhaps any indication why for most old films, you can find plenty of information through Google, but for this one, the "Google approach" suddenly is not effective? Fram (talk) 08:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - I really wanted to vote keep but can't find any sourcing that suggests this film was in any way notable. Despite its age, there would be coverage if it were notable, and as pointed out above it seems to have been rereleased in 1968, to little fanfare. It appears to just be a short ad created by the railway company as a vanity project.  The only info I could find that wasn't mentioned above is [], which while it has more info about the film, the name of the site suggests it's self-publishing and therefore unreliable. I couldn't find that article on any other site that isn't reader controlled. There's so little info here anyway, I wouldn't be opposed if someone wanted to redirect this to LMS Princess Royal Class, which at least mentions the film, albeit with an unsourced mention, calling it "classic". A link to the film on YouTube is also in the external links section of the LMS article. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  23:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 05:24, 19 March 2019 (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.