Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Rail Class 35

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. – Alphax ^τεχ 07:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] British Rail Class 35

Just another stub about a box on wheels. Why write these articles? Silensor 16:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Duh, they are a piece of engineering, and a piece of engineering history. A Hymek is one of the Western Region's foray into hydraulic transmission, (normally diesel locomotives have electric transmission). Also, the Hymeks have quite a distinctive appearance so they are not a "box on wheels"; and we'll get a photograph, sometime. Technical details such as weight, tractive effort, etc, can also be added. There is enough to make a decent article including talking about the 4 preserved examples, liveries (originally green, later blue), etc, though it is a stub at the moment. Take a look at British Rail Class 50 for a better article. Dunc|☺ 16:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I see no justification to delete this article. If anything it needs expanding - see British Rail Class 86 for another good example of how it should eventually look. Our Phellap 17:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable, Wikipedia is not paper. Kappa 17:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Very Strong Keep verifiable, useful, interesting insight into the development of transport and engineering. chowells 17:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per above arguments. Part of a series. Punkmorten 18:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep please two wrongs do not make a right Yuckfoo 20:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Schools are far more important and relevant to social history than wheeled metal boxes, however Wikipedia has more than sufficient capability to comprehensively document both, as they're all part of the sum total of human knowledge. Keep. --Centauri 23:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep this box on wheels (even though it's not steam). Grutness...wha? 23:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep <sigh> agree with Yuckfoo that two wrongs do not make a right. However, Dunc's clear partisanship for these totally non-notable and useless stubs about crappy, uninteresting boxes on wheels that may or may not have "distinctive appearances" (gee, most schools have distinctive appearances) is completely disgusting.--Nicodemus75 01:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as per Dunc. MCB 01:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. Dunc may have some issues with civility which need to be addressed [1] but that is not a valid reason to delete a perfectly fine stub about a notable type of locomotive. We can and should be able to coexist peacefully. Bahn Mi 01:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep... as verifiable. Maybe they could open a school inside one and make it more notable(and before you flame me, that was a joke).--Isotope23 02:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Move to British Rail Class 35 On Wheels....just joking. Keep, of course. This looks like a bad faith nomination. -- Natalinasmpf 14:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 22:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as per Dunc. These machines are a part of British industrial history and are notable. Eddie.willers 00:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Railway engine types are all notable. This article is also part of a series of articles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Silly nomination. Thatdog 08:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep nn railcruft. --SPUI (talk) 08:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If this is a notable example of hydraulic transmission, mention it in the article about hydraulic transmission. If this is part of the history of a rail manufacturer, mention it in the article about that manufacturer. This isn't an encyclopedic subject unto itself, and if there's a series of articles, why not instead make a list or write an encyclopedic overview of the topic instead of listing each individual example? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Locomotives are encyclopedic. --SPUI (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Judging from that article, that encyclopedia is both an encycloedia of locomotive terms and concepts, paired with a catalog of models. The former is encyclopedic, yes, the latter is not. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 05:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Odd AFD, IMO. This woouldn't hapen to be related to schools being nominated for deletion, would it? Schools and locomotives/trains (which I know absolutely nothing about, except that I can never get one on time) are equally as notable as, for example, a benchwarmer playing in the football (soccer) non-leagues. SoLando (Talk) 01:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• weak Keep - I am a former trainspotter and I still ahve a large model railway layout but I can't claim to be a fan of traincruft on Wikipedia. - Just zis Guy, you know? 10:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - While there is an article here, is it not easier for someone to add to it and edit it than for someone to come along and write it all from scratch. Better to have a stub with a notice like "This is not up to standard, please improve" than to have nothing. I do not believe there are not photos and external links to be added with ease, also details of those (4No.?) that are preserved. AHEMSLTD 20:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

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.