Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pickering Lumber Co. 12


 * 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 redirect‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Niles Canyon Railway. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 21:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Pickering Lumber Co. 12

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

I am unable to find any significant coverage (really, any coverage at all) of this locomotive in secondary sources. Appears to fail GNG. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and California. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: Sadly as a railfan, I must vote for deletion. There is no coverage other than the Nyles Canyon Railway's blog for sourcing, and some photos of the locomotive. Not meeting GNG. Some coverage in this book, but it's a directory listing Oaktree b (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If sources cannot be found then this should be redirected to Niles Canyon Railway (although that section might be better named just "Steam locomotives") where it is mentioned. I don't see any benefit in deleting the sourced information present in the article. Thryduulf (talk) 08:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, apologies for the late reply.
 * As expected and mentioned in your message, no additional sources about her have been found, therefore, i completely agree to redirect her page to Niles_Canyon_Railway, and delete her page.
 * I'm glad we could come up with a solution ^^ Christian40213 (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You do realize the one and only source in the article is a photo with no additional information from some dude's blog, right? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * How is that relevant to what I wrote? I'm not arguing to keep the article in its present state or merge unverified information. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The only sourced information within the article is that the locomotive showed up at an event in 1986. You said I don't see any benefit in deleting the sourced information present in the article but I don't see any valid sourced information. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2024 (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.