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. Clear consensus to delete. One suggestion for merge, but as the content is unsourced, that would not really be a suitable ATD so I am closing as straight delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diesel (fictional locomotive) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I'm not finding coverage for this fictional character outside of wikis, sundry other user-generated sources, blogs, toy sales sites, and primary sources. Previously redirect to List of characters in The Railway Series back in August, this was later reverted in September by Shhhnotsoloud with the statement that the redirection caused problems with redirects and context at the target. Was earlier prodded by Piotrus, deprod was done the next day by Necrothesp as "too iconic for prodding". Well, since PROD and redirection have both been objected to, and a merge is not a great idea, given that the sole inline citations is to an unreliable source, so the content in not verified at the moment, we go here to AFD. I'm not seeing a WP:GNG pass here. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. My initial PROD was "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar.". Well, the unsubstantiated claim of "too iconic" aside, nothing has changed, and said claim is, well... WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:ITSNOTABLE, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that my deprod was simply because I believed that prodding had been misused. Prods are only for blatant rubbish, not for well-sourced articles, and are becoming too commonly used for articles that should actually be taken to AfD for proper discussion.. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has one inline citation to an unreliable source. I don't think this is exactly "well-sourced". Hog Farm _Bacon 14:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's also, by definition, sourced to the books and other media in which the character appears! Editors shouldn't just go round slapping prods on articles that need discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I am neutral on deletion, but I should explain that I reverted the original blank-and-redirect because not all incoming redirects to this article concern The Railway Series, and List of characters in The Railway Series#Diesel would have been reduced to a circular redirect. A more careful merge would work, though, with attention to incoming links. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I wasn't able to find reliable sources for WP:GNG but if sources are found I would support keep/merge. Spudlace (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep is the primary antagonist of the series. I'm fed of the Thomas deletionists that have destroyed Wiki coverage of Thomas recently and now even the main characters are being deleted. If this gets deleted then Wikipedia should give Thomas fans their donation money back. Stop forcing us to use the ad laden fandom.com. 94.175.6.205 (talk) 12:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; with selective merge This is exactly what fandom/wikia is for... Aren't they also a part of the Wikimedia foundation; IP? Back to subject, the subject isn't notable as is. Selective merge where needed with the main List of Thomas & Friends characters article. Nightfury 13:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no substantial 3rd-party, secondary source coverage. That is what we need to justify an article. Not a claim that someone is the "main antagonist", which is not really a sustainable claim in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Since he is the main antagonist indeed, I thought there would be some reliable coverage about him. Instead I got the same unreliable sources Hog Farm did. A redirect is all that's worth, and that's it. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is material better suited for a Thomas & Friends Wiki.TH1980 (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per common sense and ignore all rules in opposition to the wholesale targeting of most or all of the main engine character and other articles about an iconic book series and television series. Wikipedia has a good collection of Thomas pages, so not understanding why this type of thing is allowed and tolerated in encyclopedic coverage of an overall topic, so maybe a closer could end it by saying enough is enough. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I am fine if an appropriate redirect is decided on and created after this closes, but as the entire content of the current article is unsouced, save for a single line cited to the official Thomas & Friends site, it should not be retained. Rorshacma (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2020 (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.