Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Spokane, Portland and Seattle Railway locomotives

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. I think might be a contentious close but I'm reading the consensus here as Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spokane, Portland and Seattle Railway locomotives[edit]

[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)

Wikipedia is not a list of statistics. This is a non-encyclopedic listing of information which is fundamentally not fit to be in an encyclopedia. It also thoroughly lacks reliable sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how a list of locomotives is unencylopedic. Many articles (such as those for train operating companies in the UK, and individual types of multiple unit) list rolling stock. This content could be merged to Spokane, Portland and Seattle Railway but I see no reason why it should be removed from Wikipedia. Garuda3 (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Garuda3, it's always a pleasure to see you at my AfDs. I really appreciate how you frequently cite policies and guidelines to back up your arguments.

"I don't see how a list of locomotives is unencylopedic." WP:NOTDIRECTORY: Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content. However, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed. Please see Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for alternatives. Wikipedia articles are not: Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. This is the definition of a simple listing without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Were the article merged as I suggested, the contextual infomation would be there. Similarily to the consensus found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delaware and Hudson Roster. Garuda3 (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heyo! Original author here! My intent was to perform the following tasks.

1. Have an online all-time roster of SP&S locomotives. When I was a new railfan back in the 80s there was little to no information about the SP&S. I figured Wikipedia was the best place to have this roster. With a way to link to articles about specific locomotives (e.g. Spokane, Portland and Seattle 700) or types of locomotives (e.g. ALCO RS-3) for better navigation. Please note that even today, there isn't another good online all-time roster for the SP&S.

2. I wanted to follow an existing pattern in use on Wikipedia. I was inspired by the way the various British railway articles have a central list of the classes of locomotives, and then individual pages for each locomotive class. For example...

Locomotives of the London and North Eastern Railway is a listing of all classes of the LNER, while it links to LNER Gresley Classes A1 and A3.

So, in summary, and SP&S all-time roster is, I believe, worthy of being on Wikipedia, and my intent was to follow an example that is already being used for other railroads that Wikipedia covers.

Thanks! LarryLeach (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These unsourced lists of "things" are an issue. Why do we need a list of locomotives, with no indication as to why these were chosen to be listed here. No sources, but it's too long to be BS, but no indication why these are important. Oaktree b (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Every railway will have some locomotives, why are these notable? Give context rather than just a list of facts. A decent loco list should have links to every model listed, a "roster shot" photograph (typical photographic example of each type) and as many details as possible, sourced with inline citations. Oaktree b (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. Sounds like there is room for improvement and so we should hold off on deletion? An example is List of Great Central Railway locomotives and rolling stock. Garuda3 (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Setting aside that much of that article lacks citations and it is full of original research, I do not believe it's appropriate for Wikipedia to collect massive stacks of information, basically all just taken from one website. Just direct readers to that website if they want to see rolling stock information. Said information also is subject to frequently changing and becoming out of date. This is part of why WP:NOTDIRECTORY exists. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Websites come and go, Wikipedia is much more likely to be sticking around long term. Much of what is listed on Wikipedia is subject to change and the ease of updating is what makes it so much more, and better, than a paper encyclopedia. Garuda3 (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why I even bother answering you, nothing I say ever registers in your mind. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heyo!

Are there specific improvements you wish for me as the author to make? Keeping in mind that I do not have any photos of these locomotives that meet our standard for publication. LarryLeach (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Inline citations which allow verifiability would be a good start. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This list is not unsourced. Thryduulf (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep. I fail to understand how a list of locomotives for a notable railway sourced to two independent publications is anything other than encyclopaedic. Given many other similar lists have existed for (in many cases) over 15 years, some of which have survived AfDs - including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delaware and Hudson Roster which you nominated with the same rationale last month - it's very clear that consensus does not agree with your position that such lists are not encyclopaedic. This could be merged with the parent article, but I'd argue against doing that because it would overwhelm that article (WP:SPINOUT is a thing). Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're misrepresenting what happened at that discussion. While overall consensus was to merge, several editors agreed that the listings are not encyclopedic (and no editors supported keeping the standalone article). And it is very bold of you to assume that two general references actually support most or all of the material in the article. With no inline citations, we cannot verify that. Furthermore, the second source is "The Great Northern Railway Company: All-Time Locomotive Roster, 1861–1970". You'll notice this article is not about the Great Northern Railway Company. Do we have any evidence that book also discusses the SP&S's locomotives? As much as I'd like to AGF, railfans are infamous for adding original research to Wikipedia articles. I know you think I'm just an evil deletionist, but at least stop and consider there might be valid reasons I nominated this for deletion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A point to remember. The SP&S railway was jointly owned by the Great Northern and Northern Pacific. The history of the SP&S is intertwined with the two "Parent Roads". However, I don't have access to "The Great Northern Railway Company: All-Time Locomotive Roster, 1861–1970".

Is your issue that you want inline citations for, say, multiple entries in the locomotive list? LarryLeach (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to weigh in here. There is such thing as Wikipedia:Categories, like Category:Spokane, Portland and Seattle Railway locomotives. If you really want a list of locomotives from one specific railroad roster on Wikipedia, create all of the pages each about the classes of locomotives you have yet to create. That way, the category will list every locomotive from that railroad just the way you’d like it to, and I doubt it requires any resources, let alone the reliable ones. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the classes here already have articles, and a well-formatted list can be much more informative than a category page. Garuda3 (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Garuda3 TITANOSAURUS 05:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Weak Keeps but I'm not seeing support to Delete this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep having just been looking at absolutely massive lists of information, this one is the thin end of the wedge. Yes, yes, I know OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bad argument. However we are going to really get into the weeds if we start trying to AfD every list. Not worth it. JMWt (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how "other stuff is worse" is a keep rationale. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination has too many flaws to deal with comprehensively. 1. The information does not seem to be "all just taken from one website" so the suggested remedy does not apply. 2. If information contained within a textual article is encyclopedic, it does not become unencyclopedic if it is listed separately. That is merely a matter of Wikipedia's internal organisation. 3. Do the references support the information? With no inline citations, we cannot verify that. Yes we can. We can read the books and check things out. For reference works of this nature page numbers are rarely even helpful, let alone necessary. Thincat (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the claim about a lack of reliable sources is demonstrably false. The article cites two authoritative books on the subject. Partofthemachine (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2022 (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.