Wiki143:Articles for deletion/GWR 6000 Class 6024 King Edward I

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO RESULT — this was not an AfD. -Splash^talk 23:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

GWR 6000 Class 6024 King Edward I

Although I originally created this entry myself, it was merged to GWR 6000 Class by Duncharris, with the reason given being "write a decent stub or none at all please". I feel that instead of being removed unilaterally, the process should be via AfD - I have therefore reverted the merge and brought it here. My own personal vote would be Keep, as I believe that this stub could be added to by locomotive enthusiasts (not a speciality of mine) but, as mentioned, my vote should be viewed in consideration of the fact that it was me who created the initial stub ("decent" or otherwise). CLW 21:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Close the Afd, and talk about the merge on the talk page. I don't see how Afd is a good way to discuss this issue. As for the merits of the article, I'd say redirect it for now, with the possibility of it being a seperate article when and if there's enough information to warrant it. Context is good. But I see no reason for the Afd when apparently nobody wants this article to go away. Friday (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment One problem is that the GWR Class 6000 GWR 6000 Class page used to link to GWR 6000 Class 6024 King Edward I. If we put the link back it won't be a redlink, it will just link to a page which is a circular redirect (there is the same problem on another of other pages) chowells 21:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Duncharris also turned into redirects a number of similar articles on preserved locomotives (some of which were created by me). I disagree with this unilateral approach when there was no attempt whatsoever to discuss or reach consensus and IMO AfD is the correct way to resolve it. Please see my talk page. chowells 21:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment a redirect can be undone as easily as it was done. I'm still not sure why the Afd, but maybe that's just me. Friday (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Purely because User:Duncharris considered this, and several other similar articles, to be inappropriate, and decided to turn them into redirects chowells 22:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

That's as maybe, but why AFD? There are no articles here to be commented on for deletion. There are considrably better ways to handle this. This could be, for example, debated through a centralised discussion. Grutness...wha? 07:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC) (I'm a LNER man myself...)

The article for comment for deletion is GWR 6000 Class 6024 King Edward I CLW 07:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge, but as I explained to Chowells, it's not that it isn't potentially notable that I merged it, it is that it was a substub and cruft. It has no content that would be useful to a reader who would be better directed to the article on the class as a whole. If we manage to get the page on the GWR King Class up to a decent standard, then we should be thinking about splitting some off. However GWR King Class is a stub which doesn't even list all of their names. It also happens that 6024 isn't even the most notable King, the first 6000 King George V is. The worst thing is that the information required to write a basic stub is online, as are several photographs that he could request permission to use if he could be bothered to send out a boilerplate request for permission. There is even more info if he is interested enough in the subject to buy the right books. I think there is a lack of knowledge and/or laziness and unwillingness to do research here. Dunc|☺ 15:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Sub-stub expanded to stub as per Dunc's suggestions. Picture research underway. 86.134.73.79 10:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • It's alright, I've just got a good photo and another sound recording. Dunc|☺ 11:01, 3 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.