Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Pacific Class P-8

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 no consensus‎. After several relists, I cannot see a definitive agreement whether there are sufficient sources to improve the article. I can't suggest a compromise such a merge or a redirect as nobody asked for that, so I have to close this as "no consensus". The accusations of sock-puppetry are unhelpful, if you want to do that, WP:SPI is thataway. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Pacific Class P-8

[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)

While some of the individual train engines in this class appear relatively notable for their careers and survival as museum pieces, the class itself does not share this notability. Most references here rely on passing mentions of the class when describing individual engines, while the two references that might contain greater detail on the class itself are both fairly old self-published texts. Pbritti (talk) 13:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Transportation, and California. Pbritti (talk) 13:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: @27.33.233.138 has a point, he has clearly spent lots of hours and tons of research into this article. @Trainsandotherthings also has a point that Locomotive classes are typically notable, and he says that it's rare for them to fail GNG entirely. Well, I think that it sounds impossible for locomotive classes to fail GNG entirely. 220.235.238.29 (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC) — 220.235.238.29 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- You know what else Trainsandotherthings thinks? That you're an extremely obvious sock. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  We can't WP:SOCKSTRIKE on a mere hunch, as was done in this edit. I've reverted that. The tag as an SPA can stay, though if they're an IP editor on a dynamic range (as the IP is), then we wouldn't necessarily see edits in that specific IP's history prior to a few days ago. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The two IP addresses are the same user. There's a AN/I discussion about them. If they were logged in it could be taken to SPI but you don't take multiple IP address of someone who doesn't have a account to SPI. TarnishedPath^talk 03:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's clearly got notability, plus if you see that there is sourcing issues (if you get what I am trying to say), you could just add the multiple issues template and then we will fix it. Plus, This sounds unfair to delete things that I have spent hours and tons of research into. 27.33.233.138 (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC) — 27.33.233.138 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Locomotive classes are typically notable, and it's quite rare that they fail GNG entirely - books on trains are an entire industry onto themselves (and plenty of books have been written specifically on the Southern Pacific). That being said, my books are almost entirely about more modern locomotives so I can't speak to the notability of this specific class enough to make a formal ruling either way. I disagree with "it's clearly got notability", as the sources are about specific locomotives, not the class as a whole, and notability is not inherited. If the notability were clear, this article wouldn't have ended up at AfD in the first place. What we need are examples of significant coverage of this class (not just individual locomotives within the class) in secondary sources to show notability. Appealing to emotion ("this sounds unfair") will not be sufficient. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable enough; Google Books shows three books written by the same author, but it mentions the 2472. Otherwise, no sources are available online. Toadette ^{(let's chat together)} 06:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I have added a book aimed at SP 2467 that isn’t written by the same author 27.33.233.138 (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC) — 27.33.233.138 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - Brian Solomon is a reputable and well-published author, I own a few of his books myself. Assuming good faith that the books do in fact give significant coverage, that would be a strong argument towards a keep. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with Trainsandotherthings—butI do worry that the reference does not actually verify the content. If possible, I would appreciate the IP or another editor with access to the source provide a quote that evidences the claimed coverage. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am literally doing my best to spare this article from closure. 27.33.233.138 (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC) — 27.33.233.138 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete and Salt. I was unable to find that WP:GNG was met. This article also shows signs off WP:REFBOMB that I've seen in other articles in the last hour and I have concerns that if/when it is deleted someone may attempt to revive it in manipulative manners despite there being no notability. Refer to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Australian railroad IP for details. TarnishedPath^talk 08:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't recall any other instance of a locomotive class (and not even a subtle sub-class) article getting to AfD, let alone deleted. Especially not when two of them were considered for preservation.
I cannot see any virtue to either of the delete !votes. The idea that adding citations is somehow now a problem on WP, let alone the ludicrous idea that Brian Solomon isn't a reliable source? This is not how we used to work, back when we used to build things. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It just sounds very stupid to delete something that is aimed at an entire class of locomotives. ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY ARE NEW AND JUST GOT CREATED! 220.235.238.29 (talk) 08:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Any sympathy other editors might have had for you went right out the window when you engaged in blatant sockpuppetry to try and maliciously contravene consensus. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - My lack of sympathy is directed towards the editor who goes around calling IP addresses sock-puppets for no good reason, and characterizing disagreement and citing books as malicious. Uncle G (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure if you're trolling or just being willfully ignorant, but either way it's a bad look and I suggest you stop before people start calling into question your competence to continue serving as an administrator. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If Solomon is a reliable source, xe gives this subject short shrift in the books that I can read. The 2009 Steam Power book gives this 3 sentences, one on page 121, one on page 123, and one on page 125. The 2005 Passenger Trains book has a sentence on page 27 and a sentence on page 106. But it looks like this is one of those articles where there are a multitude of such little sources, and the Solomon sources that I've read check out and support the content. I even found a couple of sources not cited, such as ISBN 9780870950124 which might contain yet more little bits. I'm not sure what documentation being from the 1960s has to do with things, when the subject dates from the first half of the 20th century. In my writing world we call that nearly contemporary sourcing. Guy L. Dunscomb's credentials, in particular, are that he was a railway historian and photographer who actually worked for Southern Pacific. By my reading, as also a member of the Railway & Locomotive Historical Society and the Southern Pacific Historical & Technical Society, Dunscomb's credentials as a subject expert are better than Solomon's. So I agree with Andy Dingley here. Uncle G (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is so incredibly empty that the articles for the 2467 and 2472 have way more information, this article in general doesn't have much information to warrant being kept around. BigSneeze444 (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is some coverage of the P-8 class in Classic Locomotives: Steam and Diesel Power in 700 Photographs on pages 122-127. Ordinarily, 5 pages would be an easy example of WP:SIGCOV, but this book is full of pictures that take up most of the pages. Still, there's probably ~13 sentences in the source that can be used to build upon this. My bigger problem in evaluating this is that much of the coverage seems to be in print sources I lack access to. I will opine the Brain Solomon's booksthat are published by Voyageur Press seem to be standard sorts of popular press books; they don't appear to be self-published. Classic Locomotives: Steam and Diesel Power in 700 Photographs, for example, even lists a staff editor (Dennis Pernu) in its credits. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Brian Solomon is a well-known author as far as books on American railroads go, and if this weren't created by an editor with such a poor track record I don't think people would be calling things into doubt like this. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article appears to have been created by an IP and accepted at AfC. I'm not sure what poor track record is getting at here.

In any case, I agree that Solomon's books published by Voyageur Press seem to be reliable sources here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk, this particularly IP is the subject of discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Australian railroad IP. It has created a number of articles which feature WP:REFBOMBing. TarnishedPath^talk 23:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon's references are RS, but very trivial. I think I'd rather have the individual locomotive articles kept (for the preserved examples), than simply a bare-bones example of the class of locomotive. Oaktree b (talk) 02:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find [1] mentions one locomotive that's been preserved, I don't think it's enough to keep the article. The class gets mentions when the history of the SP (Southern Pacific) is mentioned, but only briefly. The books mentioned in the article as sourcing are fine, one is only a series of photographs that mentions the class. Oaktree b (talk) 02:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Best I could find was this [2], basically a roster of every locomotive the company owned. The kind of stuff foamers (what we railfans call ourselves), foam at the mouth over, but nothing we can use to build a wikipedia article. Oaktree b (talk) 02:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are musuems in Oregon and in California that have preserved examples, but with less than a paragraph each, coverage just isn't enough here. Oaktree b (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sourcing is in adequate both in the article and what I can see available. Others have engaged in assessment of sources in good faith and do not find them sufficient. In the absence of better sources by those arguing for keep, I have to support the argument for deletion. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:32, 4 December 2023 (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.