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. While Thryduulf found some sources, they are almost alone in believing that these sources warrant keeping or merging the article. Based on our policies and guidelines, the "delete" arguments are not only more numerous but also stronger: Thryduulf's sources are scattered bits and pieces of mostly primary sources, not the kind of material we generally admit establishes notability.

While a merger would normally be a possible ATD in such a case, in this instance neither the few lines of prose nor the data in the infobox are cited, and as such, nothing appears to be mergeable at present. If better sourcing for the existing content is found later, this can be restored via WP:REFUND for merging. But it might be easier to add some new content from scratch based on what sourcing has been found. Sandstein 19:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail DHP1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Wholly unsourced article since 2009 Danners430 (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: without sources. Nothing came up on Google. RolandSimon (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Danners430 (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There just isn't anything written about this that I can find [1], a photo there, and [2], a magazine that won't open for me... I'd maybe merge this into the list of British locomotives, but it's unsourced regardless. I mean, the information came from somewhere, but we don't have a source identified... Oaktree b (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find any evidence of SIGCOV, and no suitable redirect target seems to exist. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unfortunately, unless offline sourcing exists (which wouldn't surprise me). I found a couple of sources that were neither in-depth nor reliable which suggest that British Rail Class 17 (on which it was based) would make an appropriate merge target if we can verify the information. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge British Rail Class 17 or Clayton Equipment Company are the obvious places to look for a mention, but there isn't any there (the latter has a see also, the first has nothing). It's mentioned in the table at List of British Rail modern traction locomotive classes#Builders' demonstrators so that might also be a suitable merge target. Some more googling has found some things that prove existence and verify some of what is in the article:
    • [3] a primary sources, but it verifies it was a "Prototype 1500HP BoBo Diesel Hydraulic", the drawing contains a copyright date which might be useful but I can't read it.
    • [4] indicates that there is a lot more information available from the manufacturer, but being primary that would all speak to verifiability not notability.
    • [5] This copy of a Railways Illustrated article (see PDF page 3) has a small amount of information, and presumably counts as a secondary source.
    • [6] A review of this book indicates that it includes information about the DHP1, but as I don't have a copy I can't say too much.
    • [7] This forum post has some quotes from an article in Classic Diesels and Electrics magazine issue 3 (December 1997/January 1998) described elsewhere as "Major", it also notes that there was at least a drawing in Modern Locomotives Illustrated No 174. I've not been able to find either magazine online. However, combined with the number of models of it that exist, I'm satisified that notability is demonstrated. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    After thinking about this a bit more, I now think that Clayton Equipment Company would be the best place to merge this to as most of the sources frame it in the context the manufacturer, the relationship to Class 17 is limited and not only does the list article not really having anywhere great to put a section of prose it feels a bit undue to have that much detail about an individual entry. As for whether to merge or keep as a stand-alone article, I might be leaning towards the former but I'd not describe either as a clear preference at this point. Thryduulf (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this is basically unverifiable. Even if it were conclusively proven to exist it would only merit a brief mention within the Class 17 article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think there is any serious doubt that this existed and was based on the Class 17. I haven't found a reliable source that states this but the variety and nature of the unreliable ones I've found leaves me in no doubt. However we do need reliable sources, and while I would be surprised if such didn't exist they haven't been found yet. Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If this conclusively exists, a redirect wouldn't hurt, but the question is where do you redirect it to? I don't think this is mentioned in any other article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  See also my newer comment above, but there is a mention at List of British Rail modern traction locomotive classes#Builders' demonstrators. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This looks like a clear delete but additional sources were brought to the discussion yesterday and it would be nice to have them assessed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not a single source provided to support the locomotive's existence. ADifferentMan (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There's a picture of it above in my link, but that's not helping notability. It exists. Oaktree b (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ADifferentMan I provided 5 sources above that prove it exists. It's less clear whether it is notable enough for a stand-alone article, but it's not a slam-dunk no (or yes) and existence is not in doubt. Thryduulf (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Assessment of the additional sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I won't mark this as a vote, because I opened this discussion... going by the lack of engagement alone, I would be inclined to suggest this be closed as a Delete or Merge (as proposed by Thryduulf). We can't keep relisting the AFD forever... Danners430 (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf's digging. It also has some coverage in Modern Railways of its time.

I wouldn't merge to the class 17 article because, despite the maker and cab similarities, they're very different locos. The engines are different (and there are twice as many) and the bogies are too, as the hydraulic has mechanical final drives rather than traction motors. Mostly the DHP1 would probably have avoided the 17's best known feature, its awful unreliability. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2024 (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.