Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Union Pacific 1982

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 merge to

(non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Union Pacific 1982

[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)

These are non-notable locomotives known only for their paint schemes. There has not been substantial independent press coverage, nor is there any distinguishing factor (like preservation) other than the paint scheme. (Compare, for example, to clearly-notable preserved locomotives Pennsylvania Railroad 4800 and Pennsylvania Railroad 4935, which have vastly more coverage and more to actually include in the articles.) Four of the six articles only have a single source that does not directly discuss the locomotives.

Also included in this AfD:

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 04:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 04:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all. Coverage for the individual engines with predecessor livery is sparse. Coverage of the fleet in general is somewhat more extant. The preferred term in most of the sources appears to be Union Pacific heritage fleet, so I'd suggest that as the title for an article that can cover all of these (and several other "heritage" train components maintained by the company). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per the above suggestion; seems reasonable to me.
Talk | Contributions) 06:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge all per the above suggestion; you don't need a separate article for the special UP locomotives, with 4141 being the exception. Just merge all heritage locomotive articles together. Besides, of all the other operators of heritage locomotives, they don't have separate articles for each locomotive either. On the other hand, please leave the UP 4141 article alone. Don't delete it. As it a very special locomotive that was commissioned for a former president, it deserves its own article. Davidng913 (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2019 (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.