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 delete. Disregarding the opinion by Andrew Davidson, who has been topic-banned from AfD. Sandstein 08:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A search for sources found zero references to reliable sources. This locomotive is not notable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Trainsandotherthings: Thanks for being vigilant. However, the reliable source is shown in Ancient Locomotive Still In Service. In: The Locomotive, by Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company. October 1925. Page 242. It explains: "The Veteran is said to be a sister engine to the famous locomotive The General." Please keep. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 07:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being related to something that is notable is not enough to establish notability for a different subject. See WP:INHERIT. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A WP:BEFORE search for "Veteran" in regards to this locomotive is inherently flawed. The only article in which it is mentioned (which, by the way, is not enough for notability) only refers to "veteran" in lowercase, preceding it with "a" and "this". Clearly not the actual name of the locomotive (compare to "General" in the article which is capitalized and in quotes). eviolite(talk) 11:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable about it. Oaktree b (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Got time to look at it on my computer - the only possibly notable thing about the locomotive (that sets it apart) is its supposed sisterhood to The General, but this is completely unfounded (the only justification given by the one source is that they look similar) and there are no mentions of that (or indeed any mention of a locomotive matching this history that I could find) anywhere else. eviolite(talk) 13:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As the first sentence menitons "A VETERAN locomotive truly deserving the name", I guess that this was its name and that it is notable as a "Unique vehicle". --NearEMPTiness (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NearEMPTiness: Please do not make assumptions not backed in RSes with regard to the name. Note how it says "a veteran", i.e. it is one of many "veteran" locomotives (that that book just designated arbitrarily). If it were called "Veteran" as an actual name, why does it say This veteran is said to be a sister engine (not "The Veteran" as you claimed; that is a blatant misquote)? Also, read the section you linked yourself. It says in this case, it is the "type" that is significant, not its notability as an individual vehicle -- yet the article is entirely about this vehicle (and for the record, the term "veteran locomotive" does not pass GNG either after a quick WP:BEFORE; the only non-Wikipedia results are about a completely different one apparently designated "The Veteran's Locomotive"). eviolite(talk) 15:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I finally noted here that it was more likely known as "No 2".--NearEMPTiness (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done, moved to J. N. Bray Lumber Company. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 04:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The new article cannot stand as is. 90% of it is about the locomotive, not the lumber company. I still support its deletion. If you want to make an article about the lumber company, start a new one, don't hijack the locomotive article and change its topic entirely. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have undone the out of process move/hijacking/whatever you want to call it (which certainly shouldn't have been done with an ongoing AfD). If there is enough material about the lumber company to write an actual article, people should be free to do that without the precedent of an out of process AfD which affected the wrong article. I note the only given source was this archive document; which wouldn't be enough to establish notability for it anyway. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not start an edit war, without participating in the discussion. Reverting some of the recent changes was neither really useful nor in the interest of the project, as shown in this AfD discussion. The formal name was clearly not "A Veteran" or "This Veteran". NearEMPTiness (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting for expanded participation. BD2412T 18:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply] Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412T 18:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No meaningful notabilty. Qwirkle (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2021 (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.
