Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Rail Class 66/0

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 merge to British Rail Class 66. As it looks like most (all?) of the info is already there I just set up the redirects. Please check article's history and merge anything left out. - Nabla (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: deleted {{Class 66 subclasses}} as a CSD G6 (Housekeeping) - Nabla (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British Rail Class 66/0

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/British Rail Class 66/0
British Rail Class 66/0 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

duplicating content from main article, main article has info in it. The individual sub-type doesn't assert notability, or else pretty much every British Rail loco ever built would have several articles on their sub-types. Imagine what it would be like in the case of the British Rail Class 47 BG7 14:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons as this one:

British Rail Class 66/3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
British Rail Class 66/4 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
British Rail Class 66/5 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
British Rail Class 66/6 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
British Rail Class 66/7 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
British Rail Class 66/9 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • Delete. Makes sense to me. I'm not against making wikipedia a well-rounded source, but this more than crosses the line into totally obscure topics. Screen stalker (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The /4 article seems to be total minutia. This all belongs in the main article. MickMacNee (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge all relevant info into the parent article, then Delete. Mjroots (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Kind of a shame. There is even a navigation template for the subclasses. all in all, the articles and stubs seem very well put together and lovingly kept. But, that doesn't really mean that they meet the criteria to remain articles. Best bet would probably be to merge each into the main class and keep that navigation template for internal navigation (so it doesn't en up like so many other articles: a list of sub-topics). Protonk (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Separate articles for subclasses help to keep the main article of manageable size. --Eastmain (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge Can easily be contained in a single article. --neonwhite user page talk 19:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Aside from Eastmain's relevant point, these document five different railways' usage of the basic type: it's not a single system's set of trains anymore. Nyttend (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
    • 5 different railways? MickMacNee (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Actually, probably so. Britain's apex as a world power was the age of coal and one of the primary consequences of the second industrial revolution was a huge number of railways and tracks. there are whole gages of track all over england (forget the name) that aren't used anymore but used to form a national network. there were hundreds of companies moving passengers and freight. It's kind of cool. think of the american auto industry before the 1930's and then again before the 1980's. Hundreds of small auto manufacturers makings specific cars. With the big three domestic automakers today, we can't even imagine how many companies there used to be. Same goes w/ railways in england. Protonk (talk) 03:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Hmmm. Reading your talk page it appears I might be preaching to the choir. forgive me for presuming you didn't know anything about england.  :) Protonk (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep/merge The organisation of this material between articles and subarticles is a matter of style and content editing which is best left to the interested editors. Deletion is neither needed nor helpful. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge content back to "Class 66" then delete and salt. We do not need separate articles on sub-classes. The differences between them are much better dealt with in an article on the main class. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge, no good rational for separate articles. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2008 (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.