Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ALCO 251

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ALCO 251

[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)

I don't see any RS we can use for this type of diesel engine. Only sources are from railfan websites, which lack proper sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Transportation. Skynxnex (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Related discussions: 2011-06 V18 engine (closed as Kept - withdrawn by nominator)

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Since it has two general independent published sources, its age should give it grandfather rights to prevent deletion.

As for inline citations using RS, I note that one of the two listed sources (Steinbrenner) is heavily quoted on the ALCO 241 and ALCO 244 articles, and that there is a section on the 251 in Kirkland, John F. (1989). The Diesel Builders, volume 2: Alco and MLW. Glendale, California: Interurban Press. ISBN 0-916374-81-5.. Kirkland was not a railfan, he was a fomer Baldwin engineer. So, I feel that the proposers supposition that there are no RS for this article is false. — Iain Bell (talk) 09:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be helpful if there was an evaluation the addition of new content to the article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:HEY due to the added sourcing. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:39, 12 October 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.