Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locomotives (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 with the understanding that the article needs a serious overhaul. SouthernNights (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of locomotives[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

List of locomotives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Extremely old and outdated list that duplicates Category:Locomotives . Eldomtom2 (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. Because:
    1. Old and outdated? it can be updated, not a reason to delete. The essay WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP A common maxim is that "Articles for Deletion is not cleanup". Consider that Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet.
    2. Duplicating? The guideline WP:NOTDUP says It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template that all cover the same topic. CT55555 (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is a clear case of WP:NOTDIRECTORY; no amount of cleanup can make this list useful. "Locomotives" is far, far too broad a category for a complete list to be of any use. A complete list would be absolutely massive: a back-of-the-envelope count suggests something like 2,000 current articles on locomotive classes, which would probably double when including all the non-notable small-batch classes of early steam locomotives. That would be nearly impossible to assemble or maintain to any degree of quality - and would be less useful than the existing category tree under Category:Locomotives. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, very large lists of tens of thousands of items exist (eg historic sites, sensibly broken out into sublists) or millions in List of species. Sure have sections or sublists on locomotive classes vs individual famous locomotives. Do these exist already? Then it makes sense to have a world-wide overall introduction/index to the sublists. --Doncram (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
List of species literally redirects to Category:Lists of species --Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! Well, it would be wonderful if there were a wonderful written introduction to the topic and links to sublists there (lame reply, sorry). The 90,000 or so US NRHP historic sites are explicitly listed though, from List of RHPs. --Doncram (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That contains useful statisical information, though. I'm not sure what statistics a list of locomotives could present.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This comment from the article's creator at the first AfD in 2004 says it all, really: Delete. I was the article's creator; its functionality has been fully superseded by categories. It is redundant. Not all lists are replaceable by categories, but this one is. —Morven 00:15, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC) Per NOTDIRECTORY we do not need this list, and trying to fully populate it would be an exercise in futility anyhow. The keep vote is not at all persuasive to me. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been eighteen years; Morven could have changed their mind. NotReallySoroka (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The relevant policy/guidance is wp:CLN, which explains how categories and lists and navigation templates are complementary. A list can include references and details and photos and can be organized sensibly according to the topics. It can and should include an introduction where most significant list-items are explained. Importantly, it can include redlinks and sources supporting those topics importance, which categories cannot do at all. Generalizing, pretty much if there exists a category then there can be a list-article. --Doncram (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The comments from 2004 are not relevant, that was long before tables were available in wikimedia and before standards and examples of great list-articles were created. I agree the list seems dead; the last talk-page discussion was in 2008. Where are the railroad enthusiasts?
The current list could/should be developed to include section on individual notable locomotives ( eg ones on historic registers ), perhaps organized by nation the province or state. And list locomotive models/classes organized by manufacturer. It should include sortable tables including photos. --Doncram (talk) 01:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it’s dead then why keep it? There’s very little actual content; why not just WP:TNT this crap and create a series of narrower lists (i.e. steam vs electric vs diesel) with tables? Dronebogus (talk) 04:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An overview/index to sublists is needed. Some would say this us then a "List of lists" or a "List of lists of lists" and delight in that. Calling for wp:TNT is an admission this is a valid topic, and then see wp:TNTTNT (essay to which I contributed) for multiple reasons deletion not appropriate. Doncram (talk) 06:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why does Category:Locomotives not provide a sufficient overview? --Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No valid reason given for deletion. the rules state that categories and lists can both cover the same thing, that list are better because they allow additional information so more useful at helping people find what they will be interested in reading. Dream Focus 04:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You can’t just call any deletion reason you don’t like (i.e. 99% of them) “invalid”. being old, outdated, and redundant is a valid reason; you’re saying it’s an invalid application. Dronebogus (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is actually a policy on valid reasons to delete here WP:DEL-REASON, so I think User:Dream_Focus is approaching the AfD in a very reasonable way. CT55555 (talk) 04:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That list of reasons isn't all-inclusive. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 02:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone already linked to Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. So redundant is not a valid reason. And old or outdated are not valid reasons either, see WP:OUTDATED. Dream Focus 06:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an article listing every locomotive past and present is not practical per WP:INDISCRIMINATE Dronebogus (talk) 04:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just a list of the notable ones, which seems a lot more reasonable. CT55555 (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Most locomotives I’d think are notable, and in any case that’s a given on WP so the point still stands. Dronebogus (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean most classes of locomotives? Google suggests there are over 350,000 individual ones in the world, they are surely not all notable. That seems very unlikely. If every class of locomotive is notable, I don't see a big problem. We have lists of poets, writers, singers, and the world has many of them. If the lists gets overwhelming, it can be split up later by year/name/country etc. CT55555 (talk) 04:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But it isn't a list of the notable ones, even if "notable" is being defined more narrowly than "is worthy of a Wikipedia article". --Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that notability is the exact definition of worthy of a wikipedia article, that's how we decide what gets articles, to me they are synonymous. CT55555 (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Categories are more appropriate for such a broad topic such as locomotives as a whole, as per nom. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 04:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Thee are plenty of encyclopedoas of rail, or books about locomotives (just click the Google Books link above). So I think WP:LISTN is met. This is suprisingly abandoned, unreferenced, etc., but I think encyclopedic (within our scope). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This needs improvement not deletion, but a list of individually notable locomotives (which seems to be what everything other than the New Zealand section lists) is clearly encyclopaedic per others above. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A list of all the individual locomotives that have articles on Wikipedia would be massive. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If it became too massive, it could be split. This is not a reason to delete. Wikipedia has lots of long lists and editors are quite capable of dealing with that. CT55555 (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As CT55555 says, splitting lists that get too large is standard editorial practice and almost always entirely uncontroversial. In this case splitting off by country for those countries with large numbers of individually notable locomotives while retaining inline those countries with only a handful will match the way many other lists on Wikipedia are organised. If you think that is a reason for deletion then you've completely misunderstood both the purpose of deletion and the general concept of lists on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 08:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: categories not matched by list-articles can be horribly incomplete even re what Wikipedia covers: They omit articles which could/should be in a category, but just aren't. They omit redlinks. They omit items covered in lists within articles, such as a tabulation of locomotives within an article about a railway or a museum. They omit other significant mentions in regular articles, such as a town article mentioning a preserved locomotive in its park.
As an exercise just now, i did some analysis in Draft:List of preserved railroad locomotives in Colorado, identifying 49 items which should be in the system of categories. In fact i do see three in Category:Preserved steam locomotives of Colorado, yay. That's where i started my list from, actually. And there is one more that should be in that category but isn't, though it can be found by drilling down from Category:Locomotives in other ways. Categories omit one NRHP-listed one that is a redlink. But the categories completely miss 44 others that are individually tabulated within museum and railway articles. You cannot get to them.
Could the category system be fixed? Yes, by creating 44 redirects to the table rows, and putting appropriate categories on those redirects. But you cannot fix the categories if you don't have corresponding lists to work from. I !vote above that List of locomotives be kept and developed, and then all the categories can be improved. But assertions that existing categories "duplicate" what sensible explicit lists would include, are naive or just wrong, IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm not really inclined to create all 44 redirects and obsessively add categories to them; maybe i would for just the isolated ones in town articles or wherever so they will be noticeable, but not for the all those in groups at railway articles, say. But i would sorta "fix" the categories by adding mention, at the categories themselves, about the groups/lists that go towards "completing" them. It takes both to help each other get towards completeness of both. Having the explicit list out there attracts corrections, additions, too, as well as it advertises need to create missing articles. --Doncram (talk) 03:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's four more than the number listed on List of locomotives. And such a list would be impossibly long. It would need to instead be a list of lists. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, i see what u mean: that the manufacturers and railways currently listed at List of locomotives don't include any of these Colorado preserved ones. I'm not sure if drilling through the Baldwin Locomotive Works diesel-only sublists could get to one or two Baldwins in Colorado (which might be steam), or not. But touché, your point is correct: the current categories are likely better than currently indexed lists.
I still wanna see sublists of locomotives by location (for preserved ones that are relatively fixed), and other sublists, all to be indexed from the top. I don't personally like renames of lists to "List of lists of..." format, like i am sure categorizers would refuse to have categories renamed to be "Categories of categories of...". But yes, top-level world-wide lists often have only sublists as members; individual items tend to show up in second or third or fourth levels along with more sublists. --Doncram (talk) 03:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that such lists would duplicate information from the pages on individual railways/museums/etc. , and unless obsessively maintained would quickly become outdated. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, not every preserved locomotive is individually notable, not every individually notable locomotive is preserved, not every preserved locomotive is preserved in its country of origin (e.g. LNER Class A4 4496 Dwight D Eisenhower) and not every preserved locomotive is preserved at a notable location by a notable organisation; most locomotives in a railway's fleet are not individually notable. This list would be a more comprehensive list of locomotives than that at any individual institution. Those lists, where they exist, would be referenced as sources of more detailed information.
The claim that this will become quickly out of date is both (a) not a reason on its own to delete a list, and (b) also not true - once a locomotive is notable it is always notable, facts like it's type, manufacturer, and country of origin never change and locomotives becoming newly individually notable does not happen very often. Thryduulf (talk) 09:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that a list of locomotives by geographical location would quickly become outdated, as locomotives move around. If it was "list of preserved locomotives built for X company" it could work, but then it doesn't seem to make sense to have "list of locomotives" only include links to lists of preserved locomotives. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one plans to limit the world-wide list of locomotives to cover just the preserved ones, or other relatively fixed ones. It is not currently limited that way. But some historic locomotives can be organized by nation where they operated, and some preserved ones in museums or on short tourist runs can be organized by more specific locations. Like for other sometimes moveable "places" on the US NRHP (eg buildings and covered bridges and other structures which do get moved sometimes, or objects such as ships, steamboats, or statues), it is not too hard to update locations occasionally when The General (locomotive) moves from one museum to another, or whatever. And we already deal with some "fuzzy" locations for some NRHP-listed locomotives that move between two terminuses of a line like the Cumbres one. --Doncram (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also there already do exist categories of locomotives organized by location, and I don't see any movement to ban those. Also IMO it is far more likely for Wikipedia to learn of a move, from the public, if they can see an explicit list of locomotives in a given state, say. Then the location-type category for the locomotive will also get updated, too, when the locomotive item is transferred from one state's list to another's. It is far easier to check a list than a category.
Anyhow, this is getting into issues best handled by editors at relevant Talk pages.
I may not respond to much further here. -Doncram (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By present geographical location is not the most sensible grouping for a list like this, however by country of origin (how it's currently organised) is. Regardless, a list needing to be updated every so often is not a reason to delete it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You'd have to split up a list of preserved locomotives in certain countries like the UK or US, though. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the length of the list dictated it then they would be split off per WP:LISTSPLIT. None of the lists of preserved British locomotives confine themselves to individually notable locomotives (e.g. there are only 3 on List of preserved British industrial steam locomotives), but the existence of categories like Category:Preserved Great Western Railway steam locomotives argues for the creation of an accompanying list and also for the retention of this high level summary list. Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How many lists are there that limit themselves to only stuff notable enough for a Wiki page while there are similar lists that list everything?--Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lists limited to only stuff notable enough for a Wikipedia article are 10-a-penny. Many of them also have more detailed lists about narrower sub-topics that have broader inclusion criteria. List of people associated with rail transport is an example I found after about a minute searching, although not perfect as the inclusion criteria are not clear, there are many sublists of people associated with rail transport in specific ways, places and/or times. Thryduulf (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is hardly a good example when it's also a rickety outdated shambles. An article that fits that definition that's actually maintained, please. It doesn't have to be rail-related. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of ways this could be handled. But I think most of us agree that trying to list every single locomotive class and individual notable locomotive on just a single list is near impossible. I think organizing by manufacturer would work well. See List of EMD locomotives and List of GE locomotives for examples of how long lists on just one manufacturer can get (and these are just classes without noting any notable individual locomotives). Listing them all on one page is impossible. The best solution with this is to turn it into a list of lists. Create an extra list for all of the one-offs like the Ingalls 4-S. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Trainsandotherthings, this is an AFD proceeding, and you have not stated your !vote. I count the existing score as 5 !votes for "Delete" (counting the nominator), and 5 to "Keep". Your position, as I interpret it, is that you !vote "Keep". (Also, BTW, i think nominator User:Eldomtom2 should now state their view has changed to "Keep", perhaps as an amendment to the nomination-statement itself.) You do make observations that I interpret like "in a huge list that is split into many pages, the top-level list will probably best consist only of sublists, not any individual items" (i agree), and "so some could say that is a list of lists" (i agree, but note it is still a list), and maybe you want to rename the list-article (I don't agree, and a rename proposal is a different process for a different day). And maybe you have other editorial observations regarding organization, definition of list-item-notability, etc., which are suitable for the list-article's Talk page. For purpose of this AFD process, could you please just state "Keep" or "Delete"? Or not. Either way, i think that this is ready to be closed as "Keep" by a closer focused on the quality of the arguments. Although probably this will not be closed until June 29, after it has been open for 7 days. --Doncram (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think my view has changed to "Keep"?--Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Week keep. I agree that this list is duplicated by (or even better addressed by) the category. I also observe that this article has not been seriously maintained at, well, any point in its history really. But in this case, we have an uncomplicated topic ("locomotives", not an "X of Y" type) that as far as I can tell does not present any problems if not kept up-to-the-minute - that is, any information (appropriately) added to it will never go out of date (it's "list of locomotives" not "list of locomotives currently in use"), and a lack of mention here isn't inherently misleading (eg, presumably no one will use this page to conclusively determine "what locomotives have ever existed" or "is x a locomotive"). I don't see the WP:LISTN fail here. There appears to be an editor willing to update and maintain this now, as well. Though I do think this would be more helpful to readers if it had a hatnote directing to Category:Locomotives - not sure what the best wording for that would be so I leave that to someone else. -- asilvering (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • very weak keep WP:NOTDUP and WP:DINC, but also WP:NOTDIRECTORY. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As some have noted, the subject list-article has been developed somewhat, now with some coverage of preserved locomotives by country. Update: I have converted what I was drafting as a list of preserved locomotives in Colorado, into a Draft:Preserved locomotives in the United States. This so far includes most locomotives which are listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. I intend to continue developing this, and get it to mainspace; it will be a sublist linked from this main list-article. --Doncram (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The list serves its purpose by bringing readers to either a locomotive page, or to a more detailed list where such a page could be found. I am aware of the category duplication issue, but it does not matter because it is not inherently problematic. As for WP:NOTDIRECTORY, the list is focussed so it is no more of a directory than other lists. Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete I really do not understand why people are so desperate to keep this incoherent, indiscriminate, ill-defined mess. It's not a list of locomotives, except for the parts at the end which are (and if we start listing all preserved locomotives, we're going to need several bigger articles). and the part that is lists of locomotive classes is mixed with a list of diesel locomotive models, and I lost track of whether electric locos are treated at all. And then we have locomotive types (e.g., mallets and Shays). I can see some point to some sort of list of lists article, but this is not it, and the only reason why this isn't one of the largest articles in the system is that nobody is putting a lot of effort into expanding it according to what it says it is. Mangoe (talk) 06:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, expanding the list of preserved locomotives towards covering a high percentage of those worldwide will indeed require splitting out several bigger articles. This is a good place to start from, IMHO. Yes, the mixture of locomotive "classes" within individual locomotives is confusing and can/should be addressed by editing (i.e. gradually move out the classes to a separate List of locomotive classes). Yes, electric locos are locos and are to be included. It is fine to mention all of these at talk page of list-article. I am making some effort to expand coverage to include all preserved individual locomotives. I personally have done all right, IMHO, with that kind of stuff, in developing many world-wide list-articles. Such as List of fire stations, say. --Doncram (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another followup: Well the earlier sections do include links and other info regarding individual locomotives (e.g. the Great Western Railway section explicitly names 3440 City of Truro), and drilling down into some classes gets to mentions of individuals (e.g. NSB Class XXI mentions a preserved example depicted in File:Lok på Setesdalsbanen. Foto T Lunde (8632976429).jpg). But yeah "classes" and "models" may be mixed, and I myself don't yet understand the distinction, so I am not sure if it should be List of locomotive classes and models, or what, that should be split out from the "list of locomotives" if the latter is developed to cover individual locomotives only (Mangoe, perhaps you could comment on this at Talk?). --Doncram (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article being in a poor state is not a good rationale for deletion per WP:Alternatives to deletion and WP:Deletion is not cleanup. I agree that a full list of all locomotives will obviously be unwieldly, but that is not a valid deletion rationale either. It just means, as several others have pointed out, that this will end up as a WP:List of lists if worked on. That it hasn't been worked on much, I also find surprising, but that too is not a valid deletion rationale per WP:Wikipedia is not finished. SpinningSpark 10:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a very comprehensive list/very random selection. Oaktree b (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mangoe and Pi.1415926535. I doubt someone can keep this list trimmed, yet comprehensive in a long run. Categories serve a better purpose here. - Darwinek (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again no valid rationale for deletion is stated. Some readers like to navigate through categories. I and others much prefer explicit lists, which can provide some introduction, explain scope, show photos and sources, comment on comprehensiveness or lack thereof (which categories completely totally fail at), guide future development by including redlinks, etc. wp:CLNT is explicitly about how categories, lists, navigation templates are complementary, and the existence of one is not an argument for deletion of another. --Doncram (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Listing of locomotive classes is certainly within Wikipedia's remit, as essentially every locomotive class is notable. Trying to fit every single class (or is it every single notable locomotive? still unclear what the scope is here) into a single article just isn't really possible. This article should be about either notable individual locomotives, or locomotive classes. Doing both is absurd. The article has become a confused mess because of the unclear scope. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any list is about "notable" examples (whether meaning Wikipedia-notable which could have a valid separate article, or "list-item-notable"); the word does not need to be included in the title. What's possible or not, what should be done or not, are editing concerns, not an AFD concern. Of course all classes can be part of one list, and of course all individual locomotives can be part of another list, although yes both of those will have to be split for size reasons. Not my fault the contents included classes. I think i did edit the list-article slightly to clarify the current contents include both, but that does not mean I intend for the contents to stay that way. When you drill down into some of those items, sometimes you get to lists of classes, only, sometimes you get to individual locomotives, sometimes you get a mix. Sometimes an item is the sole locomotive built, like a prototype, of planned class, so they are the same. I have taken on developing "preserved locomotives" which are individual locomotives, and I will have to drill down into each of the ambiguous items to find individual locomotives to add. I personally am more interested in individual locomotives, akin to historic sites; could you perhaps be the one to develop a list of classes? Or, this list could be pared to drop the classes without moving them to a separate new list (although I agree that would be obviously notable); this is a matter for editors at the Talk page to decide. --Doncram (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For what it's worth, I am finding that the categories in these areas are really poorly organized or maintained, and in the process of trying to develop Draft:Preserved locomotives in the United States I am having to spend a lot of time fixing them, adding suitable categories to articles, etc. And, frankly, it would always be impractical if not impossible to check the contents of the categories and maintain/improve them, if there are not corresponding list-articles or sections. Also, it has been pointed out to me that many very short stub articles on individual locomotives have been created, in Draft space or otherwise, and I am creating rows for each one of those locomotives and redirecting the short stubs to the rows, using "id=" row anchors. It is seeming to me hugely helpful for Wikipedia to have proper list-articles developed here, instead of hopelessly unmanageable, awful, inaccurate, and incomplete categories, and zillions of bad stubs. --Doncram (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Locomotives, and retain the current formatting of only including notable topics in the list. This article would benefit from expansion, rather than deletion. Concerns about the article size ballooning can easily be addressed by the performance of page WP:SPLITS if that occurs. Cheers, North America1000 01:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that the list is in a sorry state. WP:IMPERFECT. The list can certainly be improved and the list is notable. Lightburst (talk) 00:52, 17 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_locomotives_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1099389168"