Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NER Class Z

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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Editors are encouraged to make improvements to the article, as indicated in this discussion, to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2023)} 13:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NER Class Z

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Aside from being virtually uncited, Can't find enough in-depth sourcing to show that other than existing, it was notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is plenty of material available (although I expect that some of it is duplicatitive), it just needs somebody to visit their library and write it up properly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I actually can't find more than 2 duplicates of sources Ilovejames5 :) 10:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean that two sources may actually provide the same information as each other. Nock, for example, is famous for plagiarising his own books - his prolific output is partly due to him lifting paragraphs (even whole chapters) from an earlier book in order to quickly fill out a later book. I wouldn't be surprised if portions of Locomotives of the North Eastern Railway (pub. 1954) also appear word-for-word in British Locomotives of the 20th Century: Volume 1 1900-1930 (pub. 1983). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand. ~~Also, do you like my new signature?~~ Ilovejames 5 :) 12:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, do you use the sources with earlier dates if they are duplicatitive ? Ilovejames 5🚂:) 03:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You probably won't be able to get hold of them all, use the ones that you can find. Yesterday I added some info from Ahrons. If you have several, use the most reliable - definitely The Engineer, if you have a subscription. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of sourcing given in the article and identified above. Article does need a rewrite. Oaktree b (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is poorly written and its original author incompetent, but the class of locomotives is notable. I'm seeing results such as [1], but I'm not having great success since I'm in the US and not very familiar with U.K. sourcing. Going to AGF that Redrose64's sources are significant coverage. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It takes time to add sources. Also it appears Onel5969 is bullying me, as he is removing my uncited info but keeping uncited info by others, so this shouldn't be deleted Ilovejames5 :) 08:14, 9 January 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.