Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BR Class 37 renumbering

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BR Class 37 renumbering

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Indiscriminate

list, more suitable for a rail-based website. Also nominating:

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We are not an indiscriminate list of information of interest to only a very few. This is a pure trainspotters list and is suited to such sites. Has zero overall encyclopaedic value. Canterbury Tail talk 13:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No policy-based reasons have been given for deletion. "Of interest only to a few" certainly isn't one. Nor are these indiscriminate lists, they have very clear inclusion criteria and their sourcing is equally obvious, from the usual standard texts. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The deletion rationale is invalid. The list is not indiscriminate. The inclusion criterion is "[t]he 309 members of the class 37", as it says right at the beginning of the article. SpinningSpark 19:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both, per Andy Dingley and Spinningspark. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly sourced unneeded
WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per the above keep rationales. The article is not "poorly sourced" it just lacks inline citations, but that is not a reason to delete an article. "Unneeded fancruft" is an entirely subjective assessment that is not backed up by any evidence. Yes this is specialised sub article of British Rail Class 37 but that's no more an indication of lack of need or of fancruftery than any other specialised subtopic some editors dislike. Thryduulf (talk) 01:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering of individual train stock is non notable and barely encyclopedic. That's why I've flagged it as fancruft and it the stuff we should leave to self published railfan websites. Ajf773 (talk) 01:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't individual stock, it's an overall set of them. That ties into the BR numbering plan, and its various renumbering schemes (which are certainly notable). There's also clear scope for a list needed on the 37s as a class, just as a way to record the named examples. For size issues, that has been split from the Class 37 article. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So it's a set of individual stock. What's the difference? Why the need for the detail of each of the stock and their numbering? Ajf773 (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The deletion rationale is poor, but speaking as a railfan, this is the prime example of the sort of content we should discourage rather than encourage. It's not encyclopedic. It's sourced, in the sense that it was copied out of Ian Allen railfan publications (I own several myself). That the class was renumbered may be worth mentioning and would be a good example of
summarizing content; listing each and every renumbering would be better done on an external site. Mackensen (talk) 12:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes, and all of that's a content issue. I'd like to see encyclopedic content on each column (what's the rationale for each of these big renames). Also expansion on the naming: why was a 37 named after a
block working?. Both of these are mostly as onward linking, rather than screeds here, but the information should be available. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

@Andy Dingley: If you want to work on this article you might be interested in this book page from which it appears that the series 4 renumbering (374xx) indicates that the English Electric generators were replaced with Brush alternators. There is also other information on the Class 37 renumebring but I haven't looked closely to see if any of it is of use to us. SpinningSpark 13:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These questions are interesting, but it's a core policy that Wikipedia should be a summary and not exhaustive. In my opinion covering a locomotive class renumbering in this depth tips the balance too far in the wrong direction, but I appreciate that my view is a minority one. Mackensen (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I get we're an Encyclopedia and all that but this content means nothing to our average reader, What's special (or encyclopedic) about a train being renumbered ? .... Does it have a long lasting detrimental impact ? ... No ....,

A bus company here in Kent recently purchased a few older vehicles which gained new fleet numbers - Would this be encyclopedic and of use to our reader ? ... No .... and the same applies here,

Anyway fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does meet the GNG - Multiple independent reliable sources listed in the article and it is a spinout article of British Rail Class 37 which is absolutely encyclopaedic. The bus company example is not the same thing as this, which you would understand if you'd actually read the article. As for "the content means nothing to our average reader" if that were a reason for deletion we'd be deleting swathes of the encyclopaedia - first up would be most of the advanced mathematics articles, followed by everything related to small settlements outside the Anglosphere, then perhaps all the articles about individual species of bacteria, fungi, molluscs, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I doesn't even come close to meeting GNG, The train article is encyclopedic but this article isn't, The bus company example is the same thing - Trains get renumbered - Buses get renumbered ...., No we wouldn't because those sorts of articles are encyclopedic ....,

You're more than welcome to preserve this either offline or on another website but as per

WP:INDISCRIMINATE this doesn't belong here on this encyclopedia. –Davey2010^Talk 02:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

The GNG requires coverage in multiple reliable indpendent sources. There are three independent reliable sources citied in the article - the GNG is clearly met. The bus example is the ad-hoc renumbering of several old buses when moving company. This article deals with the systematic renumbering and renumbering of an entire fleet of vehicles - yes it needs improvement with reasons, dates and the significance of the name but that is not a reason for deletion. If this article were titled List of British Rail Class 37 locomotives then nobody would not have any problem with its existence as an independent list split off from the main article solely due to lack of space - which is exactly what this article is. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How are they reliable sources? Ajf773 (talk) 02:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Allan Publishing is the single most respected publisher of railway-related books in the United Kingdom and Platform 5 Publishing is not far behind. Do you have any evidence that they are not reliable sources? I genuinely can't think of any reason why they would not be reliable. Thryduulf (talk) 09:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find the extract(s) in any one of the "several editions" that would reference this content? Ajf773 (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't personally own copies of those references, but if you dispute their accuracy you could ask at

WT:UKRAIL as it is very likely someone there will have access. I'm not sure why you require several editions though and contrary to your quotes you are the only person to use this phrase in this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@Ajf773: Why are you fussing about sourcing? Your deletion rationale was FANCRUFT which is a separate issue from sourcing. Will the addition of good sources change your !vote? SpinningSpark 20:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It won't, it's still fancruft. But I already know it's hopeless arguing with inclusionists. Ajf773 (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it's pretty irritating for you to put people to the trouble of finding good sources to no purpose. But now that I have them, here they are anyway;

Kenny Barclay, British Rail in the 1980s and 1990s has a page on every class 37 and class 47 locomotive including renumbering information.
Andrew Walker Class 37 Locomotives also covers the renumbering of locomotives individually.
Ross Taylor Class 47 and 57 Locomotives has some individual renumbering information.

I'm going to add these to the article. Now please stop saying the page is unsourced. SpinningSpark 21:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at least put it in as a collapsible table into British Rail Class 37. Tony May (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But then I would say that, wouldn't I. One reason for creating the page in the first place, apart from documenting the different changes, the reasons for which are covered on the main page about the class, was to provide links to the sources of the various names of individual locos. There are similar lists of the names of, eg, Great Western Castle Class steam locos (that I don't see anyone attempting to delete). In answer to the specific question about naming some after various moluscs, those locos were allocated to the petroleum sector and are the names of shells, Shell being a major customer of that sector. Perhaps I should add a section on name rationales to the page, assuming it isn't deleted, of course. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.