Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Union Pacific "Big Boy" No. 4012

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Union Pacific "Big Boy" No. 4012[edit]

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

Delete This individual example of a product does not meet notability requirements and this article is a content fork. There is nothing about the history of this particular example that sets it apart from other locomotives of the same type. Most of the article simply repeats information already available at the main article. The research links provided above all refer to 4012 being on display and mention nothing more. What is so special about 4012 that it merits its own article? Ch Th Jo (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is entirely appropriate to have an article about the locomotive type, and also about this specific locomotive. This locomotive is a major item on display at the Steamtown National Historic Site, one of the finest railroad museums in the world, and has its own unique history as documented in many railroad books. I believe quite strongly that articles about individual, well-documented historic locomotives are appropriate for this encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Article inclusion is determined by following the notability guidelines, not our individual beliefs. What, if anything, is unique about 4012? Where is the significant national (or even regional) media coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject? The notability guidelines say "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition" - where is that coverage of 4012 as an individual unit? Looking at the references section of the article, 4012 does not appear to be well documented in any railroad books - there are literally none referenced. The automated research links provided above turn up nothing other than the already established fact that 4012 is on display. Yes, 4012 is in the collection of a fine museum, but simply being on display in a museum is not enough to merit notability. Ch Th Jo (talk) 02:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a book called The Big Legacy of the Union Pacific Big Boy: Why Railfans Still Love the "World's Largest" Steam Locomotive, which discusses the eight surviving examples, including No. 4012.

In 1968, Railway magazine wrote, "Preeminent is one of the Union Pacific "Big Boys" — the most powerful locomotives ever built in the United States. No. 4012 is a massive 4-8-8-4 built in 1941 and in service just in time to assist with hauling wartime loads over the Wahsatch Range of the Rockies between Utah and Wyoming. Standing by it, one can readily believe that it is the heaviest and largest locomotive ever built."

In 1957, Midwest Railroader wrote, "Union Pacific "Big Boy" was in town today, Sept. 3, Thursday. No. 4012, dead of course, stopped in NKP East Haven yards for servicing, enroute to Steamtown, Bellows Falls, Vt. It looked beautiful in a new paint job."

In 2005, the magazine Railroad History wrote, "Other images of interest, for instance, depict the LV's role in moving Union Pacific Big Boy 4-8-8-4 steam engine No. 4012 to Steamtown in Bellows Falls, Vt."

The 2006 book Steam Trains has a section about this locomotive, which begins, "1940 Union Pacific No. 4012, Alco 4-8-8-4 The steam locomotive grew ever larger even as diesel engines were starting to make inroads. It reached gargantuan proportions with the Union Pacific Railroad's legendary "Big Boys." Only 25 Big Boy engines were built, but they were monsters. Each weighed one million, two hundred thousand pounds. They stretched nearly to the 50-yard line of a football field. The 4-8-8-4 locomotives were actually two engines in one. Behind the cowcatcher and pilot wheels was a massive pair of cylinders and side rods powering eight driving wheels. Right behind the first set of drivers was another matching pair of big cylinders and eight more driving wheels. A trailing truck supported the cavernous coal-burning firebox and cab. Attached to the Big Boy was a 14-wheeled "centipede" tender that held 56,000 lbs. of coal and 25,000 gallons of water. Built by Alco, these behemoths were designed to pull 150 car freights through the Wyoming-Utah Wasatch Mountains without helper engines. This was something that the Big Boys did with ease."

Anna Dubrovsky's 2011 book Pennsylvania says "It's home to one of eight surviving “Big Boy" steam locomotives and the only one stored east of Wisconsin. Weighing in at 1.2 million pounds, Union Pacific No. 4012 was one of 25 Big Boys built in the 1940s to pull long freight trains over the mountains of Utah and Wyoming. Though it no longer operates, it's among the standouts in the collection of locomotives, passenger cars, freight cars, and maintenance-of-way equipment at Steamtown "

These references over half a century show that this specific locomotive is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These references simply state facts that are applicable to all Big Boy locomotives and do not demonstrate that 4012 is special or unique. These references do nothing do distinguish 4012 from every other Big Boy. At best these references offer only passing mentions of 4012. These references build the case that the Big Boy series is notable, but do very little for 4012 in particular. If this is the best that is available, 4012 is clearly not notable. (edited to add a proper signature) Ch Th Jo (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is clearly notable and the article itself has scope for development. Thincat (talk) 09:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please expand your idea, in terms of the notability guidelines, why 4012 is "clearly notable". So far, even after Cullen's research, no one has uncovered any facts about 4012 that distinguish it from all other Big Boy locomotives. What about 4012 is special or different? (edited to add a proper signature) Ch Th Jo (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our notability guidelines do not require facts which distinguish this individual locomotive from others. We require reliable sources covering this particular locomotive in depth. "Keep" does not preclude a consensual merge with Union Pacific Big Boy and I wouldn't regard a merge as out of the question. Although I often favour "merge" if a topic is not notable, when it is notable I prefer to leave this to the editors of the article rather than to AfD which is often remote and uninformed. Thincat (talk) 09:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree on the notability per Cullen328 above. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As above. --Bhtpbank (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep and friendly WP:TROUT for Ch Th Jo (talk · contribs). Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as outlined above; the nominator is reminded of WP:BEFORE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems indeed from the sources that the specific locomotive is notable. It can happen, and lack of notability should not be assumed just because it seems unlikely. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is not at all unlikely to any serious student of railroading that individual locomotives can be notable. See Sierra No. 3 for another example, DGG. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I meant. I should have said "seems unlikely to people who do not know the field." In talking about WP, I have frequently used our articles in this subject area as examples the sort of thing WP could and should -- and does -- cover in detail. DGG ( talk ) 06:54, 8 November 2013 (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.