Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Pacific 9010


 * 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Southern Pacific 9010

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

NN and unremarkable subject with an article which is essentially is a heavily undersourced history more suited to a sheet on a plinth in a museum than Wikipedia. Essentially only 2 (3, maybe?) msrginally reliable sources, remainder are the museum where this loco is kept or Facebook shudders..... Cant find any general notability either, most of its history is also documented on the design's main page: Krauss-Maffei ML 4000. Nightfury 11:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 11:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 11:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge to Krauss-Maffei ML 4000, doesn't appear to meet GNG, but some of the detail could go into the preservation section of main article.  Alex Noble    - talk  15:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep If we have pages on notable steam engines, like Southern Pacific 4449, I do not see why notable diesels like SP 9010 cannot have their own, especially if they are the last of their make and model.TH1980 (talk) 03:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * How is it notable? Please explain. Being the last of it's make and model doesn't make it instantly notable. Night</b><b style="color: White">fury</b> 08:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I repeat, this engine is the last of its kind in the United States of America, and not many of this type were built for the Southern Pacific in the first place. If we can have pages on notable individual steam engines, the same logic can apply to this diesel.TH1980 (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. The page has existed for over eleven years and is C-class. The last of a rare type makes it notable. If it is up-merged to Krauss-Maffei ML 4000, then that page will become unbalanced - over half the resulting page would be about SP 9010. — Iain Bell (talk) 16:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * please see my comment above, being the last of its type does not make it notable. Why should this have an article, when its history can easily be elaborated on the model's page? <b style="color: White;">Night</b><b style="color: White">fury</b> 08:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And what does “this page has existed for 11 years” have to do with anything? CZ3699 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep It is the last of it’s type, so it should have its own page, although more sources are needed CZ3699 (talk)
 * Keep, esp. per User:Iain Bell. As noted, though with variation in grammar, it's the last of its type, and this is a claim of importance.  The article states "SP 9010 is the sole surviving ML 4000 C'C' built for use in North America, and the sole surviving mainline diesel-hydraulic locomotive in North America (Several diesel-hydraulic switchers exist in service and in museums)."  And the article has numerous sources, establishing Wikipedia-notability.  Sure, if people want to call for more sourcing, it can be tagged, but wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --Doncram (talk) 11:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate re sources? What is notable? I can see three out of the 8 sources that at least have a slight chance of being reliable... Are we really calling Facebook as a valid source? <b style="color: White;">Night</b><b style="color: White">fury</b> 12:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Needs more input. "The last of its type" is not a valid argument against notability concerns as per our guidelines and practices. Basically, only reliable sources are a valid argument against notability concerns.
 * Comment - I've not done a before check for sources elsewhere, so I'm not !voting, but the reasoning above doesn't seem to do more than prevent an A7 claim - very few things on wikipedia have inherent notability just from their status and proof of existence, and this subject isn't one. The numerous sources currently present certainly aren't providing notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I see the sourcing on this is a bit weak, though I did find an article in Trains. However, it's not that terribly different from the rest of Category:Preserved diesel locomotives, most of which have no claim to notability except being preserved. Mangoe (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. As the last one in existence,  it is clearly notable.  Kablammo (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article runs to over 1500 words. The Krauss-Maffei ML 4000 article is 750 words, once you exclude material that is also covered in this article. Merging the two is nonsense; you would end up with an article that is one-third on the type, and two-thirds on the preserved example. That would be a prime candidate for a Request to Split. The status quo is the most sensible option. — Iain Bell (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Noteworthy and being the last one of its kind. KartikeyaS  (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.