Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Railpower RP14BD
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 speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn request. Favonian (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Railpower RP14BD[edit]
- Railpower RP14BD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article lacks any sources and no reliable sources could be found in google hits or news, prod removed by ip Rmzadeh ► 19:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Per ANI threadWikipedia:Ani#user:Rmzadeh.2C_Vendetta_Proding_against_Wuhwuzdat I also challenged prod on merit.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep reference added, was found within 30 seconds on yahoo. 64.53.177.123 (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)— 64.53.177.123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- i fail to source that "The engines are computer controlled, with the computer stopping and starting engines on a rotating basis, as required to produce the horsepower needed at any given moment." this is the only sentence written in the article and the source clearly does not verify such claim. Rmzadeh ► 19:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as passing WP:V. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentAccording to WP:V "All material added to articles must be attributable to a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and one appropriate for the information in question. In practice you do not need to attribute everything; only quotations and material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed". This article is made up of a mere sentence which claims something that can not be sourced. So i really fail to see how this articles passes WP:V. perhaps if the article had more substance we could say that this one sentence needs sources but the whole article is simply made of this one sentence and there is no verifiable claim in the article whatsoever. I would highly appreciate it if you could explain how you see it as passing WP:V?! Rmzadeh ► 20:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Marketwatch.com, Greenrailnews.com , nsdash9.com , trainweb.org , istockanalyst.com, ecnext.com, bctechnology.com , progressiverailroading.com were interesting reads and only took a minute to find, guessing I could find stronger sources if I wasn't actually busy at work. We aren't talking about contentious issues in a WP:BLP, after all. My concern is that the rational in the original AFD is rather weak, as "lack of google hits" isn't even really a criteria for deletion and is instead listed in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. It is weakly sourced, but exists and it is reasonable to assume that better sources exist but aren't on the first page of a google search done while talking to customers on the phone. And while you can argue every link and nitpick the details, just remember that sometimes it is better to be happy than right. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My friend maybe I have not been able to explain this right, I have no issue with the fact that this locomotive exists! I have an issue with the fact that the page in question has no verifiable content. in my opinion, lacking verifiable content leads to 2 grounds for deletion of WP:V and no content. WP:V does not ask us to verify the title of an article, but the content. I agree the title and the horsepower is verifiable. the rest of this very very short article is in my mind not verifiable. Rational for the AFD was based on the fact that I could not attribute the content of the article to a reliable source. I still fail to do so. Please remember just because the name matches doesn't mean the content matches. I really do appreciate your research in this matter, I don't know the first thing about locomotives but I also know that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and since this article lacks any proven facts, it lacks content, and as such should be deleted or revised to have credible substantial content. Rmzadeh ► 22:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Disputed fact now referenced. 64.53.177.123 (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We are beating this horse to death, and I leave it to the closing admin to draw their own conclusions. I do feel that you (in good faith) are applying the guidelines too rigidly, and misunderstanding the intent. More experienced editors save their big stick for biographical or more controversial topics. Just remember, it is better to be happy than right. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My friend maybe I have not been able to explain this right, I have no issue with the fact that this locomotive exists! I have an issue with the fact that the page in question has no verifiable content. in my opinion, lacking verifiable content leads to 2 grounds for deletion of WP:V and no content. WP:V does not ask us to verify the title of an article, but the content. I agree the title and the horsepower is verifiable. the rest of this very very short article is in my mind not verifiable. Rational for the AFD was based on the fact that I could not attribute the content of the article to a reliable source. I still fail to do so. Please remember just because the name matches doesn't mean the content matches. I really do appreciate your research in this matter, I don't know the first thing about locomotives but I also know that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and since this article lacks any proven facts, it lacks content, and as such should be deleted or revised to have credible substantial content. Rmzadeh ► 22:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Marketwatch.com, Greenrailnews.com , nsdash9.com , trainweb.org , istockanalyst.com, ecnext.com, bctechnology.com , progressiverailroading.com were interesting reads and only took a minute to find, guessing I could find stronger sources if I wasn't actually busy at work. We aren't talking about contentious issues in a WP:BLP, after all. My concern is that the rational in the original AFD is rather weak, as "lack of google hits" isn't even really a criteria for deletion and is instead listed in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. It is weakly sourced, but exists and it is reasonable to assume that better sources exist but aren't on the first page of a google search done while talking to customers on the phone. And while you can argue every link and nitpick the details, just remember that sometimes it is better to be happy than right. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentAccording to WP:V "All material added to articles must be attributable to a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and one appropriate for the information in question. In practice you do not need to attribute everything; only quotations and material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed". This article is made up of a mere sentence which claims something that can not be sourced. So i really fail to see how this articles passes WP:V. perhaps if the article had more substance we could say that this one sentence needs sources but the whole article is simply made of this one sentence and there is no verifiable claim in the article whatsoever. I would highly appreciate it if you could explain how you see it as passing WP:V?! Rmzadeh ► 20:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since Rmzadeh requested I comment here because I edited the article, let me just start by saying that WP:V is the wrong argument to be using, since Verifiability has nothing to do with deletion. Verifiability is about confirming that the information in the article is correct via the sourcing given. I don't think you're debating that the current information in the article is incorrect. And, if there is not sourcing for certain information, then it should be requested that it should be obtained, but that doesn't meant the article should be deleted. No, what you want to be arguing by is WP:N, in that if the subject isn't reported on in multiple reliable sources, then it should be deleted. You should not be arguing based on length of the article, since the state of an article has nothing to do with the notability of the subject it is based on.
- However, as Dennis Brown showed above, there are numerous sources about the subject and that prove that the subject is notable. There are also likely sources out there that can be used to expand the text of the article, which is the assumption that notability gives. The article currently being a stub is not a reason for it being deleted. SilverserenC 23:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I should have thought locomotives were notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - has a source, but references need improving, so tagged as such. ukexpat (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Request Withdrawn Sufficient changes have been made to the article, it no longer fits deletion policy. Please snowball. Thank you Rmzadeh ► 17:05, 15 April 2011 (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.