Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:
Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.
If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: [[example article]].
If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.
I was extremely surprised to see this closed as delete. Of those people who actually engaged with the sources one recommended keeping, one (me) suggested keeping or merging and one recommended deleting or merging. Of those !votes from before the sources were identified all of them are wholly or mostly invalidated by the sources and subsequent discussion of appropriate merge or redirect targets.
I genuinely don't understand how you can state that there is nothing to merge, or that most of the sources are primary (3 of the five I found, and the coverage Andy Dingley mentions are secondary). Thryduulf (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's one way to look at it - another is that in three weeks, your sources convinced only one out of three subsequent commenters. So I don't think that the earlier "delete" opinions are necessarily invalidated. Sandstein 20:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, unfortunately it's a typical one in this area - a lot of obscure machinery was built in the 1960s. This locomotive definitely did exist (there are at least four different images of it on the net, original drawings exist, and railway model makers have even produced models of it), but you try finding a reliable source with reliable information - even the sites that do talk about it can't even agree on its power units (four 375hp engines? two 750hp engines? Who knows?). That said, there's enough out there for at least a redirect to one of the targets mentioned in the AfD. Black Kite (talk)12:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There has never been any credible disagreement over the engine number and power. The class 17 used a pair of untried 750 bhp Paxman engines, and had many problems with them. DHP 1 used Rolls-Royce engines from the outset and these just weren't of that size, only half of it. This isn't because of any issue with Paxman, but because of its connections to Fell and the Yorkshire Taurus (which already used R-R) [1]. If anything, DHP 1 is more of a Taurus on bogies to make it a road switcher, rather than the canard of it being a 'hydraulic 17'. The reports of DHP 1 having two 750 bhp engines are entirely wrong, based on assumptions that it was simply a 17 with a changed transmission. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I don't think that the earlier "delete" opinions are necessarily invalidated. In what way are comments stating that the existence is unverifiable and that there are no sources not invalidated by the existence of multiple independent sources? Whether those sources demonstrate notability (sufficient for an article or to merge the content) is something reasonable people can disagree on, but unless and until they actually opine on the sources you can't say one way or the other.
Of the people who commented post-sources being presented, one is irrelevant as they clearly didn't even look at the sources (ADifferentMan), oaktreeb is unconvinced of standalone notabliity but expressed no opinion regarding a merge, the nom vaguely suggested delete or merge (which was actually a much stronger argument than their nomination) and Andy Dingley recommended a straight keep with a comment about additional sources (the strongest argument since mine). That's not consensus for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the rule about re-creating deleted categories? I may want to re-create some just for my own use, so I am OK with them being deleted again and won't vote to keep them. Davidgoodheart (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not very familiar with categorization. Generally I assume the rules are the same as with articles. Also, categories are not for any one person's use, but for all editors and readers. Sandstein 22:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9MOTHER9HORSE9EYES9 (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Because there were three "merge" opinions (counting the nomination as not disagreeing with a merger) and three "keep" opinions, including two made after the merger proposal. Sandstein 15:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second keep might have been unfounded since it was made by a non-confirmed user. Third keep was on the condition of merger. Either way closures are not entirely dependent on a headcount, as keep opinions did not demonstrate how this fulfilled WP’s notability guideline relating to significant coverage in RS. Also, it might have been premature as barely two days have passed and consensus had not yet fully formed. I would ask for your kind reconsideration, or at least relisting to get a clearer consensus. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree; the second "keep" was by a registered user (albeit with a poor rationale), and in any case, even unregistered users can comment in AfDs. The third "keep" did not propose a merger (except that the said that some content shouuld be moved elsewhere). The AfD ran for the full 7 days. Given the number of views expressed, a relisting was not called for. You can continue to propose a merger on the article talk page, which is the proper place for it, not an AfD. Sandstein 18:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
