Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delaware and Hudson Roster

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 Delaware and Hudson Railway. There's a clear consensus that a stand-alone article is not warranted, but no consensus to delete, hence a merge seems to be the way to go. Randykitty (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delaware and Hudson Roster

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a fairly clear violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and lacks anything besides primary or otherwise unreliable sources. Wikipedia is not a locomotive roster hosting service. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Delaware and Hudson Railway as an WP:ATD. NemesisAT (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This should not be merged, because the content falls afoul of WP:NOT. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of articles on British locomotives/multiple units that detail different units in that class. Our TOC pages also contain fleet details. So it seems widely accepted for this content to be included in Wikipedia. WP:NOT is a very broad guideline so just quoting that isn't specific enought to exclude this content, imo. NemesisAT (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I cited the specific part of WP:NOT that this violates in my nomination statement, but I will repeat it again. This violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. "Wikipedia articles are not: Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith—just the notable ones. Nor should listings such as the white or yellow pages be replicated. See WP:LISTCRITERIA for more information." This is a simple listing without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a convincing argument to ignore policy. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LISTCRITERIA is part of Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists and so applies to whether or not to have a separate article, not for content within an existing article. There is enough prose and context at Delaware and Hudson Roster for the article to sustain a table. Tables are often used within articles as are lists. Hence why I propsed a merge. I think WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is valid in this case as I'm pointing out that evidently in most other places on Wikipedia editors are okay with including information on individual locos/units in a class. NemesisAT (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge @Trainsandotherthings Yes, "Wikipedia articles are not: Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit." But if it was merged into the Delaware and Hudson Railway article, the table inside the article would have that contextual information, especially if expanded. Techie3 (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This content is not deserving of a merge for the same reason. ––FormalDude talk 02:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—not encyclopedic. Imzadi 1979 → 06:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per others, wikipedia is not a directory. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per NemesisAT. This is not a directory, but an encyclopaedic listing of a notable part of the topic - compare East Midlands Railway#Rolling stock, London Underground rolling stock, RegioJet#Rolling stock, for examples of exactly this type of material. There isn't enough prose here to support a standalone article, but there is enough in the main article to support these tables. Thryduulf (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Delaware and Hudson Railway as encyclopaedic listing relevant to that subject. Djflem (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The cited Wikipedia:NOTDIRECTORY is specific in that a article may: simple listing, list or repository of loosely associated topics, non-encyclopedic cross-categorization, a genealogical entry, an electronic program guides, or resource for conducting business. It is none of the mentioned points. This list, as now written, does not give context, but merge to parent article certainly would. Djflem (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Merge to the Railroad's article. The information in these tables assembled admirably by Kafovofa nonetheless is not as useful or comprehensive as the tables seen at List of Great Northern Railway (U.S.) locomotives, for example. If this article is kept for any reason, it should have a "List" name, not this odd "Roster" name (with Capital 'R'), as if this is a noted subject of scholarship or history. Here Under The Oaks (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Delaware and Hudson Railway Bruxton (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Delaware and Hudson Railway somehow. "What trains did this railway use" is encyclopedic information, and would be more comprehensible if bundled together with the rest of our information about the railway. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.