Southern Pacific 7551: Subject is not inherently notable and what notability exists is in the context of a subject already covered in the disaster article.  I would also be content with a merge to redirect.  Pbritti ( talk ) 06:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology , Transportation ,  and California .  Pbritti ( talk ) 06:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I would recommend keeping it.  Because, it wasn't just involved in a wreck.  It was actually the first locomotive on SP to sport the Kodachrome livery, which is what makes the locomotive notable for.  27.33.233.138 ( talk ) 06:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC) — 27.33.233.138 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] If it is first locomotive on SP to sport the Kodachrome livery, (which is what makes the locomotive notable for), then there's no reason to delete the article.  27.33.233.138 ( talk ) 06:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Besides its completely new y'know 27.33.233.138 ( talk ) 06:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Neither involvement in a wreck nor being the first locomotive in a specific paint scheme come anywhere close to notability.  27.33.233.138, you need to stop creating articles about individual locomotives.  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 06:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I agree with Pi.1415926535.  Mackensen (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Well,  I am agreeing with the editors about the subject.  As Pbritti stated, the article wasn't completely encyclopedic such as using cardinals as in the text May 12th, 1989 and that context of the mentioned article already exists in another.  Toadette ( let's chat together ) 16:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I cautioned the author that this locomotive wasn't notable when I reviewed the draft a month ago, and their response was to essentially REFBOMB with a ton of sources that only have passing mentions.  Essentially, if it came up at all in google books, it went in as a ref.  This makes the article appear notable from a superficial glance (presumably how it got past an AfC reviewer), but closer inspection reveals this is not the case.  "It was the first locomotive to have this new paint scheme" is completely irrelevant and means nothing for Wikipedia notability.  I echo Pi's comments - some of the preserved steam locomotive articles they create have been fine, and I accepted one myself, but diesels are much less likely to be individually notable outside their class.  Nobody is denying the locomotive existed, but it completely fails notability guidelines.  Being present in an accident doesn't make the locomotive notable, because notability is not inherited.  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 21:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to EMD SD45R#Accidents and incidents , where the accident involving this locomotive is mentioned, and selectively merge content to provide more detail on the accident.  I doubt that the individual locomotive is notable based on the sources I can see (I frankly don't see WP:SIGCOV of the locomotive itself from multiple independent RS), but I do think that redirecting to the place where it's mentioned on-wiki would be reasonable.  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If a merge-to-redirect is the ultimate outcome, I agree with RTH that this is the best target.  ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 05:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] San Bernardino train disaster would be a better redirect target.  I've just removed that section from the EMD SD45R article - just like with automobiles, incidents that happen to involve individual locomotives are generally not relevant to the class.  (Unless the incidents were specifically related to the class, like EMD SDP40F#Derailments , but that's not the case here.)  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 05:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That would also work for me as a redirect/merge target.  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and Salt so there can be no manipulative attempts at resurrection.  TarnishedPath talk 08:37, 15 November 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: redirect