Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LMS Sentinel 7164 (2nd nomination)

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. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete "votes". Eluchil404 (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LMS Sentinel 7164[edit]

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

An individual steam locomotive that does not appear likely to meet WP:N. Already deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LMS Sentinel 7164, now recreated with different offline sources. If these books only mention the locomotive in passing, as appears likely given that there does not seem to be anything special to say about it, that's not enough to meet our notability requirement. Sandstein 22:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was in capital stock of a major company; that makes the class notable. From that perspective it is just as relevant as any other unique class, e.g. LMS Turbomotive, the only difference being size and cost. I can see a genuine issue with inclusion covering the fact that you can have one class of 842 engines covered by one article, and one class consisting of a unique engine covered also by one article. One is inevitably covered in more depth. I have a list, List of LMS locomotives as of 1947-12-31, List of LNER locomotives as of 1947-12-31, with the others to follow when I get time. So yes Wikipedia should cover every class inherited by British Railways. There is enough research on the subject. The problem with merging is (1) it's not clear to where it should be merged (2) if it is merged anywhere, it ends up biasing that article. Photographs will eventually follow; have faith, I have copies of at least two copyrighted ones. Details of liveries can be derived from them. I have a date of renumbering to BR if I can find the book it's in. From an engineering point of view, it's fairly unconventional compare to the more conventional Stephenson-based locos owned by the LMS. So to conclude, it's one of those articles that isn't especially notable, but is required for completeness, otherwise there's a redlink in List of LMS locomotives as of 1947-12-31; "we're not going to tell you about that because we don't want you to know about it". That's really not a helpful attitude to take, is it? Tony May (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- PS The aim is to cover all of the LMS/BR locomotives, not all of the Sentinel ones so the comment "We can't reasonably add descriptions of every individual locomotive this company ever built to its article." has got it the wrong way round. I'm not going to do down industrial railways, but I don't have the books to cover that. We can however cover the few classes that were in capital stock of the mainline railway companies. That is entirely reasonable and entirely feasible. Tony May (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- PPS - it meets the somewhat arbitrary criteria laid out at Wikipedia:Notability (vehicles) as it was a "type" (i.e. class) unique to both the LMS and BR (all other sentinels were to different designs). Tony May (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the article we discuss here is an article about one individual locomotive, yes? I I've nothing against articles about classes of vehicles, but even the essay you cited says: "Almost all individual vehicles are not notable". I do not understand how being "in capital stock of a major company", whatever that may mean, makes it notable according to WP:N or its subpages; no such criterium is mentioned there. Sandstein 13:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons given by Tony May. I would also point out that the previous deletion proposal was on the basis of alleged copyvio. However, the present article is derived from Wikibin, which is available under the GNU Free Documentation License, so the copyvio allegation does not seem relevant. Biscuittin (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Sentinel locomotives for other, similar, articles. Biscuittin (talk) 09:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is Wikibin GFDL, but it's GFDL sourced originally from WP itself. Mind you, one of the teenage admins will then just delete it as a CSD#G4 Andy Dingley (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This isn't just an article on one loco (which might indeed have notability issues), it's an article on a class that only had one member. It's a generally accepted goal that WP coverage should expand to an article per class, even for the single member classes. This much was recognised in the very first nomination, although the article title didn't make that nature as clear as it might have done. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, the article does not say that it's an article on a class that only had one member. There's nothing about it constituting a class. And even if that is so, a class as I understand it cannot have one member; the defining feature of a class is that it consists of several vehicles built to type. This is merely an individual locomotive that does not seem to have been covered in any detail in reliable sources and therefore fails WP:N. I can't find the "generally accepted goal" you refer to in any notability guideline or policy. Sandstein 13:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a good article at present, that's for certain. However it is listed in the standard references on the subject. 7164 was (AFAIK) a unique type within the LMS fleet (although I don't know how close it was to other non-LMS Sentinels). Compared to the other LMS Sentinels, it was a smaller and simpler (single speed vs two speed) design. A peculiar indication of the attention paid to it is that someone has considered it worthwhile producing a replica of it (one reason that I think this type was a standard small single-speed Sentinel, sold industrially in some numbers).

As to classes, then a class is merely an archetype. This doesn't matter whether a hundred, a singleton or even none of a planned class are built. I ought to do the GWR Hawksworth Pacific and the L&YR 2-10-0 when I get a chance, neither or which were built. What matters is that notability was paid to them, which is the case in all of these cases. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At some point in the future I'll probably merge this to Sentinel BE locomotives, once I can source that it was indeed the standard 19 ton version of this widespread Sentinel class. Of course someone also needs to write that article. Balance really would have the LMS example as a redirect to and a section within an article that really is on "the class", per Sandstein.

In the meantime though, this article and its scope is the best we have, and there's certainly no reason to delete it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it quite clearly said "...but unique to the LMS, though the LMS did have other Sentinels of different types". Tony May (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on sources now listed in the article and Tony May's arguments. The Steve 06:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whereas we don't have articles on individual locomotives, unless those locos have been preserved, or were somehow significant in their own right, such as a technological advance, we do have articles on locomotive classes. The maximum and minimum size of loco classes are undefined: therefore a class of one can exist. If the LMS had bought a second loco of the same type, that would be covered on the same article and not given its own article. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2012 (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.