Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EMD E2

EMD E2 was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP

An article in true, er, "trainspotter" style about a kind of locomotive of which only six were ever built (we don't learn where, or by whom) and of which none have survived. As a one-time devotee of Thomas the Tank Engine it pains me to say this, but I don't see that this locomotive is distinguishable other than cosmetically from others. If it's notable (which I am willing to believe), its notability is not explained in any way that I can understand. This appears to be one of a small number of articles already written in what's proposed as a ginormous set of such articles. Nothing wrong with any of this, but as long as the notability isn't presented in any way likely to make sense to those who aren't already devotees, it belongs on a rail-specific Wiki or other site. -- Hoary 05:46, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC) Request withdrawn. See my second follow-up message ("Your project sounds admirable....") -- Hoary 05:00, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)

PS a clarification: I'd certainly agree that information on locomotives, even detailed information that is not necessarily easy to understand for the newcomer, is encyclopedic. But there's a difference between an encyclopedia and a fan database. Initiating a large set of articles on individual locomotives looks to me like a move toward the latter. -- Hoary 06:56, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

Even if one assumes the truth of that, it looks like we've already decided to include "fan database" type stuff, for example Pokemon. --SPUI 07:19, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

“Wikipedia’s goal is to create …the largest encyclopedia in history, both in terms of breadth and depth.” EMD E2 is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_ Trains. “This WikiProject aims primarily to improve the coverage of trains and all things railway/railroad in Wikipedia”. As such, I envisioned a series of articles documenting the progression of railroad technology over the decades. Some would be detailed, such as EMD E2, and some would tie together all the detailed articles, such as the yet unwritten EMD E-units article.

One comment is that “we don’t learn where, or by whom” the locomotives were built. I should have been more explicit. The General Motors Electro-Motive Division built these locomotives. This division is known by its initials EMD, and that’s why we put “EMD” in the article title. These locomotives were built in LaGrange, Illinois, USA, but I thought that was too much detail. I can put it in, if you want. Or I can put it in the EMD E-units article when it’s written. Differences between this and other passenger locomotives involved more than cosmetics. The horsepower ratings were different. The brake systems also differed. But I thought including the brake system data would be too detailed. Again, comparing the detailed articles would show the progression of technology. The progression would be stated explicitly in the summary articles.

This article, and the others like it in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trains will appeal to railfans. I don’t see too many railfans on Wikipedia, yet. But if we provide content, they will come. They would provide a huge user base.

This is a project in progress. We are willing to listen to criticism. But given the goal of Wikipedia, I don't see that deletion is the answer. Improvement is the answer. Rmeier 07:45, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your project sounds admirable. Sorry if I jumped too quickly to the wrong inference from the article, viz: "X is important; there are Y named variants of X; ergo we must have Y articles." (I'm appalled to see that yes, this does seem to be the approach to video games, cars, Pokémon moppets, Nikon lenses, and miscellaneous other teen and preteen obsessions.) I certainly agree that rail and locomotives are important (and interesting) and deserve to be covered in detail. OK then, I hereby apply to withdraw my request for Vfd and hope that there's no (or not too much) bad feeling. -- Hoary 08:44, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

• Keep: DCEdwards1966 06:23, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, possibly merge with other future articles about similar locomotives. General Motors Electro-Motive Division made the engine (see the table at the bottom). Though I am interested in railroads, I couldn't give a shit about the trains, but info like this is encyclopedic and belongs here. --SPUI 06:38, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Rmeier 07:45, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I think the problem with articles like this (and it's a common problem with such articles) is that it's easy to put down the dry technical statistics about a piece of machinery, but much harder to write about that device's place in the world, its importance in history, its importance in its field, etc. Especially since, writing in NPOV, we generally have to attribute qualitative statements to someone else rather than making them ourselves. So such articles often start out being rather bare, and rather useless to anyone in that for the knowledgable fan, nothing notable is said, and for the layman, nothing is explained. However, the article is then up and ready to be improved with the standard Wiki process. On the subject of railroad locomotives, one should be aware that whole books have been written about single classes of railroad locomotive, so there's generally plenty of scope for an article ... —Morven 09:02, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the article has been somewhat improved from the original version, of course. —Morven 22:25, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. No way should we delete the sought article of a legitimate and factual WikiProject. Samaritan 09:11, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Thius is a legitimate and appropriate article under WikiProject Trains. Vaoverland 09:36, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. We are trying to add information to cover all aspects of railroad technology and history. I see very little difference in the type of information presented here as in the articles in Category:Aircraft such as Aero Boero 260AG; EMD E2 has much more descriptive text than the aircraft article noted here, and as others have stated, EMD E2 is part of WikiProject Trains.
• keep obviously. Dunc|☺ 15:58, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, delightful and notable. Wyss 19:00, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - Andre Engels 22:23, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• keep Yuckfoo 04:46, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• To an author of three railroad-related articles, specifically Wigwag, Orange Empire Railway Museum and GE U25B, this is a holy mother of keep. - Lucky 6.9 21:49, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I am not a train enthusiast, but even I have heard of the two trains pictured in the article. Keep. Edeans 05:35, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Is it ironic that I wouldn't have known Wikipedia had this wonderful set of articles under construction were it not for this Vfd? — DV 13:57, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Comment I would like to think that this and many other articles in Wikiproject Trains will especially appeal to younger readers and stimulate learning and more reading through Wikipedia. Now, I will go play with my electric train around a holiday tree, as I first did in 1957. Happy Holidays to all! Vaoverland 17:59, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.