Talk:LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0 4806

Trains: in UK / Locomotives Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Locomotives task force.

This article lacks references.

Not speedy deletion[edit]

Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A1 states:

No context. Very short articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article.

Example: "He is a funny man with a red car. He makes people laugh."

The example has only two sentences, no identification and no links.

This article identifies a specific locomotive, and has three strong wikilinks to relevant topics, plus one external. That alone means that it has some context, such that another editor (including the creator) might extend it to make a full article. Simply on those grounds alone, this does not meet the criteria claimed for speedy deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of preserved steam locomotives[edit]

This applies equally to GWR 4900 Class 4979 Wootton Hall

As a matter of general policy, it is my opinion that a surviving UK steam locomotive in relatively complete condition, especially one in working or near-working order, is in itself sufficiently notable for inclusion. When significant numbers of visitors will pay money to see it or ride behind it, that's notable.

If we must, put it to an AfD as to whether my opinion here is upheld by the community. Please do this in the wikipedia spirit of community consensus, and do it on a timescale that allows the involvement of relevant parties, such as those editing the many other articles related to UK steam railways. There is no justification whatsoever for individual admins, with no involvement in the topic, project or community, trying to apply "speedy" processes to an article that whilst debatable, is certainly not any sort of problem in the spirit to which "speedy" is intended to be applied.

Obviously if this debate has already happened elsewhere, please point me to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. If these articles get deleted, then why not all the others in the class, like for example GWR 4900 Class 4930 Hagley Hall? Apart from the quality of these new articles, and the manner in which they were created (which I have addressed on the newbie originator's talk page, there is no difference in notability that I can see. Nor is there any difference between this and probably 90% of new articles.Derek Andrews (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, we've got over 2,000,000 articles here already. Well over 90% of new articles, especially those on topics in the Anglophone world, are going to end up deleted. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point? Are you really justifying poorly considered taggings and deletions because "most" articles deserve it? How about actually applying some judgement before you act so infamously precipitously? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the correct solution would be to merge all the individual loco articles into the article about the class? If any engine ever gets sufficient material to warrant its own article, then is the time to create it, and make a 'main article' link. -- Derek Andrews (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with writing for this topic, so for guidance I went looking for debates about notability within the railway community: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 5#Station articles, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 4#Stub sorting - again!, Wikipedia talk:Notability (Railway lines and stations). I'm not sure if they come to any conclusions, but it might be worth trying to build some concensus and add guidance notes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways. We could all use our time more effectively than arguing about this. -- Derek Andrews (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as someone who has created articles on steam locomotives that are both preserved and scrapped, I have to disagree with Orange Mike. Over 90% of new articles are not going to be deleted - at least if we exclude vandalism, atacks and nonsense. I've left a notice on mallard's talk page about the benefits of using a personal sandbox to create articles. It seems that this editor is making a positive contribution to Wikipedia, and with a bit of guidance will turn out some really good articles. That is to be encouraged, not jumped on with speedy deletion tags. Mjroots (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised the issue at WT:RAIL. Hopefully we can get this sorted soon and have somwhere to point people to in future. Mjroots (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image needed[edit]

I've added another similar Black 5 image, but it would be nice to have one of 44806 herself. I'll try emailing the Llangollen webmaster, as they've a number of nice ones. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't put in another photo of a different black five please. That'll only deter someone from adding one. Tony May (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]