British Rail Eastern Region departmental locomotives: Danners430 ( talk ) 16:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Danners430 , were you aware that there isn't actually a requirement in any policy or guideline to cite sources?   Our rule is that a subject can qualify for a separate article if sources exist in the real world, even if none are cited in the article .  WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 18:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes I am aware.  However, if you continue reading through that guideline, you’ll find more info - specifically regarding whether editors can find sources elsewhere.  I’ve done a search through sources that I know of, and through search engines, and can’t find any sources whatsoever.  As per that guideline, that seriously casts into question the notability of the article.  Danners430 ( talk ) 18:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This is contextless data with no indication of importance or discussion as a group in secondary sources; as such, it fails WP:NLIST .  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 21:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I found a book source which I think is enough to establish the topic's notability.  Smith, Paul; Smith, Shirley (2014).  British Rail departmental locomotives 1948-1968 : includes depots and stabling points .  Hersham: Ian Allan Publishing.  p. 96.  ISBN 978-0-7110-3800-4 .  OCLC 897871236 .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 10:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NLIST .  These statistics are not given any context or meaning.  Eastmain above fails to distinguish between departmental locomotives as a whole (we already have British Rail departmental locomotives ) and eastern region departmental locomotives.  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 22:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Switching to Merge with British Rail departmental locomotives in the interest of developing a consensus.  I'd rather we have one of these list articles than three, that's for sure.  There is no reason I can see to have separate list articles when one will do.  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 14:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – there is a whole chapter devoted to this subject in volume 10A of Locomotives of the LNER .  I have added this source as a reference to the article, along with one for each main section.  I don't mind expanding it to one citation for each loco, but it a fair amount of work, and it would be a waste of my time is the article is deleted...  The source also states the location the locos were used at.  This is also part of a series of three articles – the second covers the Southern Region and the third every other region.  — Iain Bell ( talk ) 10:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Why do we need a series?  These are just lists, and British Rail departmental locomotives could easily hold the entire contents of this article if people think it's worth including in the encyclopedia.  Splitting them up seems arbitrary and not particularly helpful.  We don't need three articles where one would do.  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 18:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 22:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - First and foremost, I concur with Eastmain that sources exist to demonstrate notability, and two of these sources have been integrated into the article as of time of nomination.  By definition, GNG is satisfied.  Being said, looking at WP:NVEHICLE , this subject falls somewhere between the "type" and "subtype" categories in my view, and leans towards the "subtype" classification, falling under the "type" of British Rail departmental locomotives.  Beyond functioning as a quasi-"list of" article, prose in this article focus predominantly on the history and numbering structure, which would substantively improve British Rail departmental locomotives .  Ergo, I ! vote that the article be merged and redirected to a subsection of that article.  Ultimately, I will also cite ease of navigation as a factor to consider here.  The linking between these articles, especially without the 'British railway locomotives and miscellany, 1948 to present' navbox on some mobile platforms, makes information unnecessarily segmented across articles.  Condensing and combining content here seems the best course of action.  Bgv.  ( talk ) 09:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Are the two sources enough to establish notability?   Are there more sources we are missing?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Malinaccier ( talk ) 01:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect: Although this information is sourced now, I don't think there is much point treating the Eastern region in a separate article (same for SR departmental locomotives , as far as I'm concerned.) — Alien333 ( what I did & why I did it wrong ) 16:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed, and I have just proposed a merge of SR departmental locomotives into the main article.  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 14:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist, no consensus here yet.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into British Rail departmental locomotives .  A good compromise for this AfD.  gidonb ( talk ) 02:38, 30 June 2024 (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: merge