2-8-8-8-2: Efforts to redirect this have failed.  Most material online about this are fansites .  While there are mentions about this wheel-type in books, I found nothing significant.  This situation is proof that Redirects are costly .  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 01:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions .  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 01:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] {comment) Chris Troutman did simple redirecting, and I undid (opposed) his/her edit, and soon he/she did this request.  This article stores the contents of Whyte notation along with other articles related to Whyte notation.  (You can see these articles with Template:Whyte types .)  Chris troutman's edit will confuse the structure of the article group, so it's best to keep it as an independent article. -- マイヤー式機関車 ( talk ) 02:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Triplex locomotive .  I agree that this is not an independently notable configuration, but disagree with the proposed redirect target.  I note that 2-8-8-8-8-8-2 points to a section of Triplex locomotive , (while 2-10-10-10-10-10-2 points to Whyte notation but is discussed at Triplex locomotive ).  I see no reason why 2-8-8-8-2 (and 2-8-8-8-4 ) could not be merged and integrated into Triplex locomotive .  BD2412 T 03:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 2-8-8-8-2 (and 2-8-8-8-4 likewise) is notable, in large part because it's a node within the wheel arrangement lists at Whyte notation / Category:Whyte notation and so its omission would be a visible failing for us.   They're obscure , but that's not the same as non-notable.  These should definitely be here as either articles or redirects to triplex locomotive .  We might justify them as articles owing to strict WP:N, but as both wheel arrangements were only ever used for these Mallets they'd only end up as three triplicated copies of content that would need to be in triplex locomotive (or maybe triplex Mallet locomotive ?) anyway.  Three articles to describe a physical object where there were only ever four instances of it?   So I'd support merging and redirect , which would be a fairly simple editorial job.  Separately, I'd also supporting splitting triplex locomotive into triplex Mallet locomotive (or Triplex Mallet locomotive , as a proper name) for the Baldwin Mallets and maybe triplex and quadruplex locomotives for the others.  The existing triplex locomotive#Expanding the concept section has poor coherence between the sub-sections, the Mallets have a strongly related development history, even the unbuilt 2-10-10-10-10-10-2 , but the various turbine , steam motor and Garratt designs do not.   Such a split is unlikely to happen (or at least, to be done well) as it would require deep subject knowledge in some obscure corners (something that WP has lost the ability to do in recent years).  I would find it hard to justify Category:2-8-8-8-2 locomotives , per WP:SMALLCAT .  Chris Troutman is wrong here on every point.  This was also a very bad edit: to have this same AfD on a different article first but to not discuss it through AfD, to claim WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE , to redirect it to the wrong target and then to do what should have been a merge and redirect but skipping the tiresome 'merge' part that requires doing some editing work – that's shoddy editing.  Andy Dingley ( talk ) 10:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral I can't decide whether to keep it or redirect it to Triplex locomotive .  I created Triplex Mallet Locomotive as a redirect to Triplex locomotive.  The split of the Triplex locomotive article was done independently of this discussion, as there was a long discussion on the Talk page of the Triplex page.  There is now a new article Multiplex locomotive which includes all the old Expanding the Concept sections .  The unbuilt 2-10-10-10-10-10-2 and other designs based on the George R. Henderson patent have nothing to do with a Mallet locomotive, as they have a jointed boiler.  They are now also included in the Multiplex locomotive page.  Pechristener ( talk ) 21:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Triplex locomotive : seems like there is ample coverage there, it's basically the same thing.  Just made by different companies.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to triplex locomotive per Andy Dingley , although I'm not seeing too much that needs merging.  The triplex article already covers much of the same ground.  What remains are the classifications, which are unsourced... and, because only three were built in the US, I would guess that they'd be pretty hard to source.  Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They're not too hard to source, as people do tend to write more about unicorns.  Andy Dingley ( talk ) 18:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm glad you think otherwise and hope you can find them; a quick Google search for two revealed nothing useful.  Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect per Andy Dingley.  I also particularly endorse their final paragraph and explicitly reject the statement in the nomination that this somehow proves redirects are costly.  Thryduulf ( talk ) 23:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I support the merge to Triplex locomotive .  I'll also note that WP:COSTLY mostly applies to creating redirects, and should almost never be considered as reasoning for deleting history or otherwise passing up an excellent WP:ATD .  — siro χ o 05:23, 2 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: merge