Southern Pacific 6051: Individual locomotives are seldom notable, and those that are almost always are preserved steam locomotives.  EMD E9 claims 42 examples are preserved, this locomotive isn't unique and fails GNG.  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 01:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United States of America .  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 01:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to California State Railroad Museum#Diesel locomotives .  No evidence of independent notability.  {{ CSRM rolling stock }} probably should go as well - it's almost entirely unviable redlinks.  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 01:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  From the article: "SP 6051 is the only surviving Southern Pacific passenger-dedicated diesel locomotive".  That's uniqueness of a sort.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 04:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Uniqueness does not guarantee notability.  That claim is not supported by the cited source, and cannot find a reliable source for it (if it's even true - there's a lot of preserved SP diesel locomotives ).  The article sources are a one-sentence mention in a book, one line in an equipment roster, a self-published non-RS, and a source that does not even mention the locomotive.  None of that meets the requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject required by WP:N .  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 05:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you get particular enough, anything is "unique".  I'd appreciate if you at least attempted to provide some sort of policy or guideline-based rationale.  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 13:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Redirect per Pi.1415926535 Dancing Dollar ( let's talk ) 15:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:SOCKSTRIKE .  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 18:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per my comment at ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Pacific 5623 , which involves the relatively new and fairly comprehensive List of preserved locomotives in the United States .  Also, I don't think the assertion about preserved locomotives mostly being steam ones in the nomination is true.  It certainly once was true, that the only recognized-as-historic ones were steam.  But, if one counts locos in heritage railways, i think it's not true, and it may not be true even if you only considered locomotives preserved in static display at museums.  (I also am not sure...i need to go browse the relevant lists.) --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 07:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Good job misrepresenting my words, I said most notable (for Wikipedia) locomotives are steam locomotives, not that most preserved locomotives are steam.  Anyways, this comment is extremely WP:POINTy and I trust it will be disregarded entirely by the closer, especially since you've failed to refute the lack of notability arguments at all.  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 13:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] User:Trainsandotherthings , I'm sorry that you think I misrepresented anything.   In my mind "preserved locomotive" pretty much equals "notable locomotive", and from my editing in lists of preserved locomotives in the U.S. and Canada, I have the impression that there the (preserved) contents of museums and heritage railways includes a whole lot of post-steam ones, perhaps more than there are steam ones (and perhaps more than the set of preserved steam locomotives plus historic notable steam ones that were not preserved).   You said "notable locomotives" are almost all steam ones;  it is my belief that was certainly true in the past but I think (and I said I am not sure) that may not be true now.   This is all sort of an aside, with respect to this specific locomotive, but it does go to the credibility of the nomination.   I "!voted" Keep. --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 19:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to the museum, could be a merge target there as well.  Nothing particularly special about this locomotive, technical-wise.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep It's interestingly marginal, but after my BEFORE search, between coverage in two books, the Sacramento Bee blurb, and references in several railroad specific books, including model railroad books, lend me to believe the engine's been commented on enough times in secondary sources to be eligible for an article.  I'm a weak because I could probably make an argument that nothing is truly significant coverage in a true "here's a feature article specifically on the locomotive" sense, but significant doesn't necessarily mean long, and there's enough sources here to write an encyclopaedia article on.  SportingFlyer T · C 19:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: I previously closed this as "keep", but reopened the discussion per request at my talk for another admin to take a look, as I'm short on time this evening.  L Faraone 00:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Close enough for a second relist despite a sizable amount of discussion already.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 03:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not opposed to a "weak keep", but that's the railfan in me speaking.  Policy-wise, I'd redirect to the museum.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources identified.  gidonb ( talk ) 02:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : the options should only be to Keep or to Merge.   There is substantial info in the article which should not be lost by merely redirecting.   Looking at the suggested redirect target, it doesn't look easy to merge substantial information to there, although perhaps a good amount could be put into a large footnote there.   I prefer "Keep".  --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 20:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The nomination asserts that the article EMD E9 claims 42 "are preserved".  In fact the article was claiming that "42 survive today" which is different.  And, "today" was apparently in the year 1997. This edit in 2019 removed mention of the source ("Andrew Toppan's list") and the fact that the list was prepared in 1997.  So TODAY, in 2023, 26 years later, we may presume many fewer survive and perhaps even fewer can be said to be preserved (by significant restoration). I wonder, did the deletion nominator know the claim was bad?  In retrospect, their wording in the nom implies doubt. I am restoring that mention of the 1997 Andrew Toppanm (whatever that is), but I also wonder how many other sources were removed in bad editing before and since. --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 11:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So TODAY, in 2023, 26 years later, we may presume many fewer survive and perhaps even fewer can be said to be preserved (by significant restoration).  That's both speculation and original research.  And even if this were the one and only preserved E9 (which it verifiably isn't), that doesn't make it automatically notable.  All I said was that EMD E9 claimed 42 survive, or were you expecting me to go and verify the exact number of E9s which are preserved?  This locomotive still does not meet GNG.  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 15:26, 17 June 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: keep