Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Smith (fireman) (2nd nomination)

Frank Smith (fireman)

This article was previously through an AFD, and was kept as no consensus with a sentiment that there must be some notability in being involved with the last steam train service in the UK. I started researching to create an article on the last steam train in order to merge the information but found information contrary to what was expected. I asked for some help from Wikiproject trains, and it turns out that Vale of Rheidol Railway was the last steam service and it ceased operation in 1989. See Talk:Frank Smith (fireman). Given that the run he worked on was not in fact the last steam service in the UK, I don't see him meeting notability. Whpq (talk) 12:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Frank's article actually says: "Frank is most notable for firing the final steam powered train into London's Waterloo Station". If we were to keep articles on every person who was the last to fire a particular steamtrain into a particular station, the list would be endless. Since evidence has been found that the assumption in the previous AFD were incorrect, I can't do anything but agree with the nominator. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As noted in the original Afd, this articles falls under WP:BIO1E, and since it has been discovered that even the event is not as notable as it was claimed, this article really has no legs to stand on. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I read the article, Smith didn't fire the final steam powered train into London's Waterloo Station (the predicate of Mgm's comment above), he fired the final steam powered train in mainline service into London's Waterloo Station. I'm inclined to think that's notable enough. If my reading's correct, Mgm's comment is inapt and should be reevaluated (it may, of course, still come out as a delete), also. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The assertion is that he was the fireman on the last steam powered train in regular service. It happened to be pulling into Waterloo station. The event would be notable, as discussed in the first AFD, however, there is strong evidence showing that was not the last steam powered train run, and in fact, steam powered trains still ran until 1989 in regular service in the UK on the Vale of Rheidol Railway. -- Whpq (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's regular service and there's regular service. It might be true that Chaosnet is still in regular service in some tiny little campus somewhere, but that wouldn't change the fact that the protocol is dead. Likewise, the article says that Smith fired the last steam train in routine mainline service, and the fact that Vale of Rheidol Railway - an incredibly small thing: it's a twelve mile stretch local service running on narrow-gauge rail - continued to run for a while after that makes no more difference to the analysis than our rogue chaosnet user, to my mind. Unless the article is wrong - if there was another steam train in routine mainline service after Smith's - I think this is notable enough to keep. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for differentiating between the mainline service and the small non-standard rail service. One of the difficulties I have is that when doing the research for the last steam train service in the UK, what I found where this article and this article. These would seem to indicate that the era of steam train service in the UK ended in August 1968, over a year later than the run noted in this article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep edit history and Merge into Waterloo Station - does not deserve stand-alone article, fails WP:BIO. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge, leaning to Delete Looking at the Waterloo Station article, I don't think this event is even notable enough for inclusion there. If it's not merged, then absolutely delete it.--Aervanath (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep In many cases, a single event can be notable--if it's for something that's actually significant, or an historic accomplishment. The question is whether this is in that class, or rather in the class of people who happen to be involved in an accident, or win a lottery. Frankly, I'm not sure. But in this case, the event is notable, and the clearest way to have an article on it is by having one on the person--there's no good way of evading the issue, like our customary "Murder of X." As for whether he is the right person, that's a discussion for the talk p. I suspect the Vale of Rheidol Railway will be regarded as a special case, since its narrow gauge, but that f can be dealt with by qualifying the claim. DGG (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Would it be appropriate to leave a note at WP:Wikiproject Trains to ask for their opinions? The intent is not to WP:CANVASS, but rather bring in editors who may be more familiar with the subject matter. -- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posting notices on wikiproject talk pages is common in AFD debates. Just do it in a "mere notice" tone not a "please !vote this way" tone. This AFD has already been added to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Living_people as noted above. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Too many people above are apparently missing the point, evidently thinking that the significance is that it was the last train into Waterloo. I think that's a mistake, so I've reworded the article slightly to make it clearer that Waterloo was simply the incidental destination.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; or in the alternative Merge relevant material to History_of_rail_transport_in_Great_Britain_1948_-_1994#Modernisation_continues and Steam locomotive#The end of steam in general use, in the subsection "United Kingdom". This event is not notable in and of itself. Maybe it could be expanded into End of steam rail in the United Kingdom or some such, which would be a sub-article of those two articles.--Aervanath (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per Aervanath. If I understand this article properly, the subject participated as a fireman in what may have been the last steam-powered mainline railway run in the UK (although, as Whpq indicates, it is not clear that this trip was in fact the last one). However, since he was only 20 years old at the time and had been a railway employee for only 5 years, I would tend to think that he just happened to be assigned to this particular run, as opposed to him having achieved some special distinction with relation to this run. I could understand if he were mentioned in connection with the event (the end of steam-powered rail service in the UK) but it doesn't seem to me that he caused history to be made or that he personally achieved notability through this event. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I mostly stand by my opinion in the previous AFD. That tourist attractions and curiousities (which is basically what the line in question was) continued to run steam trains after their use throughout the rest of the country was terminated does not change the main thrust of the argument. The fact that this line was run by BR is an interesting quirk (I had assumed all lines of this nature were run by private companies) but does not detract from the fact that this person was apparently the last of his kind, i.e. a professional fireman on the national steam engine infrastructure of a major country. For all practical intents and purposes, that profession did die after his last run; the fact that a few (and the number must have been extremely small) were retained for a small rural line that could not practically be converted to run on diesel engines does not really change this. JulesH (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is not the subject of multiple independent reliable sources. The event itself is the subject. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]