Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of stock used by Swiss Federal Railways

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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of stock used by Swiss Federal Railways[edit]

Unencyclopedic. I can see lists of the different kinds of railroad stock and even which ones are used by what railways around the world, but an inventory doesn't seem to me to belong here. JeffW 22:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep (I created that article). I cannot find any good reason to delete it in Wikipedia:Deletion policy. The only point that could apply is in WP:NOT ("7. Directories, directory entries, or a resource for conducting business. [...]"). But since there are many other lists in Wikipedia, I can't find much reason why this one should be bad. Well, it has way more information than most other lists - I can remove that information (then it would be a list like many others), but I don't see why that should make it more encyclopedic. By the way, one reason why that list contains that much information: Many of the locomotives listed there won't get a dedicated article in the foreseeable future (currently only very few have), so this way the most important data about them is nevertheless available. --Kabelleger 22:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Eminently encyclopedic. -- RHaworth 22:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not the usual indiscriminate listcruft. Of definite interest to railroad-aholics. Slowmover 22:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep per above Jcuk 01:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Information on rolling stock is important for the coverage of the Swiss railways. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it belongs to Wiki and has potential for improvement. AntOnTrack 10:17, 24 March 2006 (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.