Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rock Island 886


 * 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. Consensus is that the article has been improved enough to suggest deletion is not appropriate, per WP:HEY. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Rock Island 886

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable, I could not find any references to support this locomotive's notability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. &#8213; Susmuffin  Talk 02:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 05:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: There is no evidence that this topic has received significant coverage from even a single reliable source. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 02:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge Sadly, I don't see much evidence of notability beyond being a preserved example of the Pacific- class locomotive. Could be merged into a sub-section as a surviving example of the class, or perhaps under the Rock Island article, preserved locomotives or something similar. It's well researched, would hate to lose the information. Oaktree b (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge Per above. Mr. Railroader (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Passes GNG, especially with (Grant, 2020) just added to article. Would not object to a merge of an identified class type if it exists, but any suggestion of a merge to a wheel arrangement is undue: There are multiple distinct locomotive classes.  In general any significantly large preserved locomotive or its class are almost inevitably notable. Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A tentative Keep: I found and added a 2009 news article that goes into some detail about the engine's history from the 1950s onwards. It would be nice to get some more detail on its service history, though. Ackatsis (talk) 09:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The good work expanding the article by Eastmain and Ackatsis shows that policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." The only problem I can see is that we're missing a picture but that's not a reason to delete. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unremarkable and has almost no coverage outside of niche non-reliable sources.  Sounder Bruce  23:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, because of the added coverage.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY, improved significantly since the deletion nomination. NemesisAT (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, now that it has been expanded with extra references. There are only four ex-Rock Island steam locomotives left, so 886 represents 25% of the survivors; the others are an 0-4-0ST and two more 4-6-2s. — Iain Bell (talk) 16:05, 6 November 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.