Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Pacific 1269


 * 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 List of preserved Southern Pacific Railroad rolling stock. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Southern Pacific 1269

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

Disputed PROD for non-notable locomotive; fails WP:GNG as all but one available sources are user-generated or self-published. (The single published source is a 23-page photo book, and GNG requires multiple reliable source.) Also fails notability under WP:TWP/MOS; there is no evidence of this individual locomotive being superlative or recognized as historically significant. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and California. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep I've added references from three more newspaper articles and two more books, which demonstrate that the subject meets WP:GNG. Opolito (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding citations. Unfortunately, these do not appear to support the case for notability.
 * As for the Arcadia books (Niles Canyon Railway and Sacramento's Southern Pacific Shops), numerous RS Noticeboard discussions express the consensus that many Arcadia books are the equivalent of self-published material and thus to be used with caution if at all. (See, , .) Moreover, these books only mention No. 1269 briefly in passing or in photo captions and do not appear to provide significant coverage.
 * Western Railroader is not a newspaper, it's a western-railroader-february-1962-deep-creek-railroad/page/n7/mode/2up self-described railfan newsletter. Fan publications are generally questionable for notability. (I am not questioning it as a source for factual information, just as evidence of the subject's notability.)
 * Finally, since you appear to have the source but it is not online, can you provide more details about how the coverage in the Auburn Journal is significant?
 * Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment If this is not individually notable it should be merged to a sourced 1-2 sentences at List of preserved Southern Pacific Railroad rolling stock and redirected there. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I support that approach. Redirect Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of preserved Southern Pacific Railroad rolling stock as an alternative to deletion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:29, 28 April 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.