Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diesel Loco Shed, Ludhiana

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 to delete or merge. Absolutely no prejudice to a re-AfD in the near future, although it appears that there may also be merit in a merge or the creation of a new target article. Daniel (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diesel Loco Shed, Ludhiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

No evidence of any notability found. Fram (talk) 07:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep:This article has 278 incoming links, and is, to quote from one of the refs: "A large shed: 170+ locos [10/13]. Locos serve a large swathe of Northern and North-western India". Sounds pretty notable to me. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither argument has anything to do with notability of course. The number of incoming links is largely due to Template:Indian Railways, which has a truckload of redlinked "railway depots". The quote is from a webpage from the "Indian Railways Fan Club"[1]. Fram (talk) 09:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no reason to question the veracity of the IRFCA source. Are you contending that all these railway depot articles are inherently not notable? Colonies Chris (talk) 10:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't question their veracity, I questioned their impact on notability. A one-line entry in a fan club website page has no bearing on an AfD, and being a "large" shed is not important either. And railway sheds are not "inherently" notable or not notable: each one has to show notability on its own, like nearly all subjects on enwiki. Fram (talk) 10:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • What would you find an acceptable demonstration of notability? Why is this one not notable, but the others may be? Colonies Chris (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Meeting the WP:GNG, i.e. having significant, indepth, non-routine coverage in independent, reliable sources. And your second question; this one isn't notable as the article gives no indication of this being a notable subject, and I haven't found the necessary sources either. So until the opposite is shown, I consider this one to be not notable. The others may be, as I haven't checked the articles nor the availability of sources. I presume most ones aren't notable, but each one should be considered separately. Previous ones at AfD ended in deletion; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diesel Loco Shed, Kalyan and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric Loco Shed, Santragachi, for what it's worth. Fram (talk) 10:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Now this isn't as particularly easy as it looks at first sight. I mean, railway sheds - what next, lists of outside toilets? HOWEVER, there is abiding interest in all things railway and I note that UK railway maintenance facilities and depots can have their own articles, so there is some precedent for railway facilities being notable. Add in some bias, and you could argue that just because this is Indian and undercovered, it should exist. There's a Ludhiana Junction railway station article, so the salient info here could go into that. Right now, however, it doesn't present evidence of notability, IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lists of outside toilets"? This isn't a garden shed. It's a very large and signficant facility, housing and servicing 170+ locomotives that serve much of northern India. And yes, it's not much written about by anyone other than rail enthusiasts, but that doesn't make it insignificant. Really, would the encyclopaedia be improved by the removal of this article and the 40 or so others like it, most of which have substantial content? Deleting them would be a sort of legalistic vandalism, destroying things because they don't quite fit a narrow technical definition of notability. Colonies Chris (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, deletion was proposed less than an hour after the article was created. Per WP:BEFORE, I feel more time should have been given to allow the article to be improved. There certainly should have been given more time to allow for sources in the local language to be found, if available. Railway stations are generally assumed to be notable, I think it's fair to assume a depot at least 40 years old is notable too. I fail to see how deleting this would make Wikipedia better. NemesisAT (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Electric Loco Shed, Ludhiana is a very similar article, but seems to be safe from threat of deletion because its references include a couple of mentions in the mainstream press. Surely, given time, similar mentions could be found for this article too. Colonies Chris (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Electric Loco Shed, Ludhiana Google maps & the coordinates show these two sheds are at the same location. No reason why they cannot be covered in the same article. Jumpytoo Talk 18:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a good idea, if these facilities are indeed adjacent to each other then I see no reason why they couldn't be combined into one article. NemesisAT (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't agree. These are two very similar facilites, adjacent but separate. If one of them is notable enough for us, then they both are. The only difference is that Electric Loco Shed, Ludhiana has a couple of mentions in the mainstream press, but the diesel shed doesn't. On that rather legalistic basis, it's claimed that one is notable but the other isn't. Colonies Chris (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge. The best sort of article would cover motive power depot(s) at Ludhiana since the earliest steam days, with an emphasis on prose rather than a photo gallery opportunity. Having said merge I am not in position to do this myself, and have minimal knowledge or sourcing for railways in Asia. A simple redirect wouldn't work; there would need to be some content about the diesel depot in the electric depot.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More refs added. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I would read the the sources added by Colonies Chris, namely [2] and [3] as adding weight for a combined Loco Shed, Ludhiana article which also could cover the historic steam running shed. This is especially the case as the article is currently falling into the trap of being used to show a gallery of diesel locomotive images rather than any of the diesel locomotive itself in the absence of any prose of significance. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2021 (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.