There was no discussion between editors or on the talk page before deletion. This page could be linked to Hormel, which is the brand's parent company. Hello-Mary-H (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Send to XFD as a Procedural Close - This doesn't seem to be the right forum, because there hasn't been a deletion discussion or a speedy deletion. There appears to be disagreement about whether to retain or restore a stub or redirect the stub to Hormel. If the stub is the status quo, an AFD can decide whether to keep the stub, delete the stub, or redirect to the main article. If the redirect is the status quo, an RFD can decide whether to keep the redirect, delete the redirect, or stub the redirect. Send this to an XFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The page was nominated for speedy deletion for being "blatantly promotional". I contested the nomination, pointing out that all content was completely neutral, unpromotional and properly referenced information about the history of the company and its headquarters etx. I then tried to ask what part of the article had been found "blatantly promotional" since that would make it possible to be more specific in my argumentation but next time I visited Wikipedia (sjortly thereafter), the page had already been deleted. I have tried to discuss the matter with the closer twice (on his own talk page and in connection with a discussion on my talk page) but he has failed to respond. Another user (from "requests for undeletion") has told me that the problem may have been that I was too specific in the "Retail locations" section but I did not add any adresses or external links. Calling that "blatantly promotional" is as I see it unjustified since it is completely neutral and factual information, even if it should not have been included. I included it to add a few blue links to a few articles with not very many articles linking to them as it is (I thought that was good practice). I have a hard time seeing how a blue link to a district, street or shopping centre can be "blatantly promotional", considering that the information is pretty useless compared to how easy it would be simply to visit the company's website/web shop. But it is as already mentioned pure speculation that this was in fact the reason for deeming the article "blatantly promotional" about the article since neither the nominator nor the closer have been willing to point it out or engage in any discussion of the matter.Ramblersen2 (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and Send to AFD - The discussion on the appellant's talk page indicates that there is reasonable disagreement as to whether the article was spam, and speedy deletions should be uncontroversial. Let the community decide. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:Ramblersen2 - If articles that you have submitted are being tagged for speedy deletion, both as G11 and as A7, perhaps you need to rethink some of your submissions. If other editors think that you are writing like a paid editor, maybe you are writing like a paid editor, which is a mistake. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Robert McClenon: I have written more than 2,500 articles (I lost access to my old account User:Ramblersen after having a new password sent to an old e-mail address) and I don't think I have had a single article deleted on these ground before and certainly not been involved in a discussion like this one), wouldn't that indicate that I am in fact not writing like a paid writer? The closest I have still got to an explanation was that User:Muboshgu told me that the problem may have been the "Retail locations" section, a 100 % fact-based list (with information that should perhaps not have been included), do you seriously think that including such information qualifies as "writing as a paid writer"? If the mere fact that someone who didn't even bother to sign his comment on my talk page have deleted a page without even being willing/able to explain what makes me guilty of writing like a "paid writer", I can only say that I bitterly regret having spent so much time on contributing to Wikipedia.Ramblersen2 (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Restore so that the rest of us can see it. A historic, high-end luggage company sounds like a reasonable topic while the idea that this will be significant as an advert sounds less plausible. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: This was hardly promotional at all. The subject's notability seems borderline, so the article may have to be sent to AFD at some point, but speedy deletion was clearly not the right way to go. Glades12 (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Restore without prejudice to AfD. That is far from the best article we have on a company, but it's very clearly an attempt at writing an encyclopaedia article so the requirements for G11 are not met. Jimflbleak also needs reminding that administrators must be prepared to answer good faith questions about admin actions - and that includes explaining why a page you speedily deleted met the speedy deletion criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Send to AfD. as for any questioned speedy deletion of this sort. (I don't expect it will be kept, but that's the way to decide). DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Keep consensus was heavily influenced on contributors favouring the subject rather than policy. Majority of discussion focused on the notion of WP:ILIKEIT and not about the general quality of sourcing and overall notability of subject. None of the contributors that I queried responded to my concerns, IMO meaning they had no evidence to give. This should have closed as a no consensus or relisted. Appreciated this hasn't been deleted but it should have been on the lack of sourcing. Nightfury11:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Void close and relist although overturning to a flat-out delete or merge wouldn't be unreasonable. The article is a poster-child for WP:FANCRUFT and the AfD was a disaster. I have great sympathy for Pax:Vobiscum who had to close it, but making the tough calls is what we admins get paid to do. The vast majority of the arguments in the AfD are classic WP:ATA. If we have pages on ... I do not see why ... cannot have their own is WP:OTHER. The page has existed for over eleven years is WP:OLDARTICLE. It is the last of it’s type is a good argument to disqualify WP:A7, but nothing beyond that. All of those types of arguments should have been ignored. Looking at the sources (both in the article and presented at the AfD), they're deplorable. A mix of Facebook (seriously?), fan blogs, etc. The Trains Magazine articles at least look reasonable, but they're press releases (note the Home/News/News Wire/... slugs), which are generally not considered to contribute to WP:GNG. -- RoySmith(talk)14:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. The nomination is actually based on our notability guidelines, but none of the keep !votes are. The two arguments for keeping it are (a) we have other articles on individual trains, and (b) it's the last in existence of the very small number made and therefore significant. The first of these is logically fallacious. The second is certainly a claim of significance, but significance doesn't equal notability and there wasn't any attempt to relate this to the notability guidelines. Nobody except the nominator supported deletion so I don't think we can justifiably close as Delete, but the quality of argument is overwhelmingly on the nominator's side. I wouldn't oppose a relist but it was relisted once already and had plenty of participation. Hut 8.522:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Per WP:IAR and WP:NOTLAW, the views of the participants in a discussion trump guidelines such as WP:N which say explictly that "occasional exceptions may apply". The discussion was relisted and reasonably well-attended and the consensus of the discussion was indeed to keep. If people who didn't attend the discussion don't agree with this result, that's too bad. Ultimately, such discussions are determined by the people who take the trouble to show up, not by a rulebook. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. At first I thought this must be a non-admin closure by an editor with nowhere near enough experience to be closing discussions, but then I was amazed to realise that the closure had been done by an administrator with well over a decade's service. It could easily be mistaken for a made-up deletion discussion written to illustrate points from Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, it violates so may of the principles made there. Just look at a few of the "keep" arguments: "If we have pages on notable steam engines, like Southern Pacific 4449, I do not see why notable diesels like SP 9010 cannot have their own": a perfect illustration of WP:OTHERSTUFF; "The page has existed for over eleven years": WP:OLDARTICLE; "the article has numerous sources, establishing Wikipedia-notability": WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. I can't find anything in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions that covers "It is the last of it’s type, so it should have its own page", but it should be obvious to anyone with even the most basic knowledge of Wikipedia's notability guidelines that that reason does not bear any resemblance to any criterion in those guidelines. As for "it's not that terribly different from the rest of Category:Preserved diesel locomotives, most of which have no claim to notability except being preserved", the mind boggles: not only is that an example of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but it even explicitly states that the "other stuff" in question has almost no claim to notability. While the "keep" advocates were posting such totally non-notability-guideline-compliant reasons as those, Nightfury and Nosebagbear were correctly pointing out that those reasons were not reasons for notability. There is no reasonable way whatever to read this discussion as a consensus to keep in Wikipedia's sense of the word consensus, and I respectfully suggest to Pax:Vobiscum that if she or he really has so little understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines as to think this discussion was a consensus to keep, then she or he might be well advised to stay away from closing deletion discussions in future. JBW (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the day the question the AfD boils down to is: can the three sources be considered reliable and do they constitute a significant coverage? I do not have access to Cauthen 2013 or Strapac 1969 so I cannot be the judge of that, and the AfD did not provide any answer to this question. I have no problem admitting that Nightfury is probably right saying that no consensus would have been a better close, but I do not see how this could be closed as delete. The AfD had already been listed for close to three weeks, so relisting it yet again seemed unlikely to be helpful. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm mostly puzzled I didn't see the AfD in the first place. Nor did most of the usual railway editors. The nomination began literally as "non notable and unremarkable" (why?) and was no better after that, with vague handwaves and "shudders".
This is a real preservation project, for a highly remarkable loco, both as a class (diesel-hydraulics are almost unknown in the US) as an example in service (the "camera car" service was unique) and for the preservation effort since. I don't see the US railway preservation press (I'm a continent away) but this is a rare project for something of this scale, and particularly for a diesel (diesels don't attract the prestige that steam does). Technically it's unique: a major restoration, on a US diesel which is (I think) a unique survivor of a whole type (not just a class) which was hardly seen in the US to begin with.
Sorry, but I'm not even playing that game. I'm on the wrong continent. Didn't I already say that the railway press (which I might reasonably look at) in my country are paying fairly limited interest to this project? And that whatever the US has in place of Modern Railways doesn't often show up in my local newsagent? [1]
So, no. I completely reject this deletionist idea that if one editor from the opposite side of the world can't justify keeping an article in zero time flat, then it ought to be deleted.
That said, there is a fair bit around.[2] Here's one of the big US rail news sites (or as it will be pejoratively discredited, "just some fat old railfans").[3] Here's a major canon source, albeit primary: [4] Here's the loco project itself, who publish via Facebook – although WP (a user-generated website) has a dogmatic position that no group can use Facebook as its main publishing channel [5] Then there are obviously primary sources, but why do we continually pretend they just doesn't exist? [6][7]Andy Dingley (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, though not against merging: The two Trains articles linked in the references are reliable, independent, and provide significant coverage. That makes this a borderline call, hence my preference for a merge. However, I'm sympathetic to the arguments that this would unbalance the article about the locomotive class, and so I'm not against keeping either. Space isn't exactly a limitation on Wikipedia. Ed[talk][majestic titan]21:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I see a lot of poor arguments for keeping, but I don't see any refutation of the arguments for keeping that actually are policy based, particularly that this is a notable example of the class but coverage of it would be undue on the main article. Keeping a spinout article that is primarily notable in the context of a larger article is firmly within policy and practice. I could live with overturning this to no consensus, but there was certainly no consensus to delete in that discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, there is no way there is consensus for deletion given that discussion, it qualifies for IAR Keep if nothing else. If this was a BLP, especially a NBLP, we'd likely reach a different conclusion with this level of sourcing, even with such an overwhelming number of keep !votes. But it isn't and frankly I think Wikipedia is probably better for having the article. endorseHobit (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relist and explain in the listing to provide input based on application of Wikipedia standards of notability. The keep arguments expresses why the commentators believe it is notable, but seems to be based on their personal perception rather than understanding Wikipedia criteria of notability and applying it. Addressing articles that may fail to meet WP:GNG is like picking up litter. The presence of litter elsewhere shouldn't be used to prevent litter removal efforts. Graywalls (talk) 07:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: to quote myself from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All India Mahila Congress: Pragmatically I personally evaluate this AfD is currently at the point where any closer evaluating a consensus to delete would be taken to the WP:DRV WP:TROUT farm, although things may change. With that triage evaluation I thus may choose to do other things such as brock watching. I will quite likely of course receive the last word.. The serious point here is AfD's can take a tremondous amount of effort to counter for relatively trivial gain and wear away at mental health and limited amount of life. To the example here I see no evidence WP:BEfORE criteria #C#3 or #C#4 was followed so I question whether the AfD was valid in the first place. There was minor badgering during the first listing, which may have put others off from joining: but a neutral comment may have been appropriate. @Sandstein on first relist indicated issues with the Last of its type argument and indicated basic response was notability requirement. Subsequent !votes continues to put forward the last of its type argument however, and crucially, notability was claimed by two references and not challenged in the XfD discussion, so there is no reason to overturn. There is a case for a merge, and there is case not to merge, and perhaps not to merge yet, especially with low-importance start/C class articles. But merge discussions are best held outside of AfD by those with a non-negative bias against the subject. It general preserved locomotives will usually have a sufficient history beyond the operational extant of the type whereby a subpage for preserved locomotive or preserved fleet may be appropriate as would likely cause undue and possible disruption to the class type article and WP:TRAINS may perhaps be advise to confirm this in my opinion. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Coverage of WP is decided by the users, not by the administrators, and the close was therefore correct in evaluating what people who wanted to comment thought proper. It violates no provision of WP:NOT., which is the basis of decisions on contents. (as supplemented by BLP). DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I agree that Coverage of WP is decided by the users, but only to a certain extent. There's certainly room for disagreement about the quality of sources. For example, some people felt the articles in Trains magazine deserved more weight as being WP:SIGCOV than I do. Some people argued that since this was the last of its type, it's notable. I disagree with both of those, but they're reasonable arguments, editors deserve wide latitude when making those kinds of judgement calls, and AfD closers should certainly take that into account.
On the other hand, many of the arguments in the AfD should clearly have been ignored. There was an argument that we should keep the page because it had existed for eleven years. There were arguments that because we have articles about other preserved locomotives, we should keep this one. Arguments like that are clearly non-policy, and no number of them should add anything to the outcome. -- RoySmith(talk)18:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith Its pretty obvious many of the !keep voters here were pretty inexperienced and failed to forward arguments properly. The "last of its type" was obviously a naive argument and obscures the (unique) "camera car" argument. An article of eleven years should have had for example a notability tag in place for a couple of months, or perhaps even a warning at WP:TRAINS to avoid the disruption of an AfD; or a request at WP:TRAINS to see if a merge could be achieved; but these arguments were not forwarded. Inexperience counts badly at AfDs and can result in content loss.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse With all due respect to the user bringing this to DRV - I can understand any frustration with the process - the discussion of whether the topic was sourced enough to be a Wikipedia article was lacking, but without any delete !votes apart from the nominator along with a couple users discussing sources, there's really no other way to close this AfD. SportingFlyerT·C08:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Not all the keep arguments were altogether convincing, but some sources were nonetheless presented, e.g. trains.com, so the basic verifiability requirements are arguably met. Without much support for deletion I see no way in which this could be closed with a delete result. Sjakkalle(Check!)08:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete, which would really save time since it's obvious (by now) this is not a notable train (because there is, at most, one source, trains.com, and you can't write an NPOV article using only one reliable source), but at the very least, relist. Roy said it well in his first !vote. The keep !votes were entirelyWP:ATAs, like WP:OSE, and "it's notable because it's the last of its kind" (what?? where in Wikipedia do we say anything is notable for being the last of its kind?). I'm surprised at my colleagues saying AFDs are decided by who shows up. I mean, so we're throwing WP:NOTAVOTE out, and saying ITSAVOTE? AFDs are really binary: either you have two or three in-depth independent RSes, or you don't, and if you don't, it's a delete, because that's the global consensus, as recorded in our policies. "No sources, no article", no matter how many people show up and say "Keep, it's a notable locomotive, we have other articles like it," or whatever non-source-based reasons they may put forward. Levivich[dubious – discuss]16:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the article I will concur it is not a notable train because it is a locomotive before it was a camera car before converting back to a locomotive. The fact a model was created specifically for it adds to the notability: [8], there is a youtube video of this [9] however there is a problem as the model moves under its own power and I don't think its mean to. @RoySmith may care to determine the validity of this source if we are beginning to talk about sources. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. As I wrote in my relisting comment: "'The last of its type' is not a valid argument against notability concerns as per our guidelines and practices. Basically, only reliable sources are a valid argument against notability concerns." On these grounds, the "keep" opinions should have been disregarded as contrary to our guidelines and practices, which is why it was wrong to find that there is a consensus to keep this article. However, for lack of any substantial support for deletion, there isn't a "delete" consensus either. The correct outcome, therefore, is no consensus - even if that doesn't change the fact thtat the article is kept for now. Sandstein 07:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
