Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Rail Class 68

{{Delrevxfd|date=2013 March 27}}

: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 delete. Article is non-notable yet. A suggestion of userfy has been made, but with no target. Someone may request userfication from myself or any admin (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

=[[British Rail Class 68]]=

:{{la|British Rail Class 68}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/British_Rail_Class_68 Stats])

:({{Find sources|British Rail Class 68}})

Two reasons for deleltion:

  • 1. WP:CONTENT FORK from Vossloh Eurolight containing no extra information except the claimed name.
  • 2. Incorrect information or speculation - the claimed name "Class 68" has not been confirmed. In the most recent publication I can find (Today's Railways, issue 126, June 2012), it clearlt states without ambiguity that the class number has not been undecided. I have spoken to the creator about this at User_talk:Hammersfan#BR_Class_68, they assure me that it is official, but the source stated above contradicts this. I should note that the page has been created before based on speculation. (possibly speedily deleted), and that this situation has happened before with journalistic speculation claiming that the number "class 68" had been assigned, but subsequently shown to be an invention. (this happened with British Rail Class 70 (diesel)).
    :(More) To the best of my knowledge the article Vossloh Eurolight can be said to be up to date, there is no significant further information currenly available to justify a content fork - this means that the template (Template:under construction) which claims "This article or section is in the process of an expansion or major restructuring" is essentially invalid - therefore it is not likely to stop being a content fork in the near future.
  • I would propose that the article be place in incubation or a user sandbox until there is sufficient extra information to justify the fork, and when the name can be confirmed by (demonstrably) reliable sources. Anyone doing this should note that some of the technical data given appears to be from the european version, and is therefor - unconfirmed for the UK version. ie is wrong. Oranjblud (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Reference to news piece from Modern Railways confirming that DRS has registered Class 68 and reserved the series 68001-68050 with the Rolling Stock Library has been added to the article. This should be sufficient to keep this article. Hammersfan, 01/06/12, 22:08 BST

::Thank you for clearing up point 2. There is still an issue with the being essentially no new information in the article, excluding the class number, which could be trivially added to the existing article. I also raised points about the data being un-verified - you have the new article - does it give technical details for the new class? (ie please add references if you have them). Also whilst here I should ask about the statement that the modifications "This primarily involved narrowing the body profile of the locomotive, allowing it to fit within the loading gauge constraints" - is that an assumption or can it be sourced? what about height? or other stuff..

::(CLUE NB Height 4.2m ?!? - As a courtesy I will comment out the problematic parts rather than removing them, as some are likely to be correct.) see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Rail_Class_68&diff=495530784&oldid=495523727

::I still think there is an issue with the article contain no verifyable information not already in the original article. (ie point 1) I'd ask that you consider placing the article in "incubation" until substantial UK specific information becomes available.Oranjblud (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The designation class 68 seems in the rail press to be highly likely to be the designation for this locomotive order. Users will search for Class 68 when looking for information about this order which has been confirmed in the press by DRS. The article contains information about this order for DRS that is largely congruent with the material in the rail press and should remain. Were the class designated otherwise then this article should redirect to a new one and it will need considerable elaboration when the locomotives are in traffic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinner doc (talk • contribs) 18:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:17, 15 June 2012 (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.