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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail Class 378 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The only evidence this class exists is a number the aritcle's author found within an artist's impression on a flyer distributed to local residents. Given the intended audience of the flyer, there is no reasonable expectation that the publishers would have verified such a piece of technical ephemera was accurate. The topic area is already well-covered at London_Overground#Rolling_stock Dtcdthingy 19:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the fact that TfL have gone to all the trouble of releasing an official artist's impression on an official piece of publicity with a clearly visible class number (378 000) is indicative that this will prove to be the final class number of the new rolling stock. To say "given the intended audience of the flyer, there is no reasonable expectation that the publishers would have verified such a piece of technical ephemera was accurate" is one individual expressing an opinion; can this be reasonable grounds for deletion? Hammersfan 10/03/07, 22.20 GMT

Yes, because they're dead right. The notion that the artist's impression showing the number is a definitive indication that it will carry that number is utter poppycock. Chris cheese 23:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an issue with the title of an article, propose a move - don't proposed deleting it. Thryduulf 10:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - an aspect of the information may be correct, but connecting it specifically to this non-existent numbered class renders the whole thing useless. Chris cheese 23:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - very well, then see TfL Board Meeting, 25/10/06 Agenda Item 4, Page 5 "Following the announcement for 44 trains for London Overground services, Bombardier have started mobilisation at their Derby plant. The first trains will be delivered in late 2008 and have been categorised by Network Rail as Class 378s." I believe that counts as verifible evidence. Hammersfan 11/03/07, 12.35 GMT

I don't. Do you know what a "placeholder" is? Chris cheese 00:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're questioning a freely available, published document from Transport for London, that states categorically that Network Rail has categorised the new rolling stock as "Class 378"? Fair enough then, I guess you must be right and the body that runs public transport in London must be wrong. By the way, there's also Sept 29 2006 if you want to disbelieve that as well. Hammersfan 11/03/07, 01.00 GMT

• cough* WP:RS *cough* That's one primary source, and one non-source (we don't believe random websites that say "X have said that Y confirmed Z" without stating their sources). Chris cheese 01:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm done playing with you now. I have provided a source for the item that is being contested on here. You have made it plain you disagree. It's now for other people to decide whether it's a worthy enough source. I suggest we leave it at that. And as it happens, I do know what a placeholder is. I also don't appreciate the whole "cough" thing, which IMHO shows a distinctly purile attitude. Hammersfan 11/03/07, 01.30 GMT

There's no need to be rude[1]. Chris cheese 01:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• After going through various resources, it seems yes there is going to be a new type of train but it does not seem to be specific totally. Bombardier and other sources basically say it is going to be based on the Class 376. Therefore i propose, for now, merge with British Rail Class 376. Simply south 17:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you at least agree that, according to the TfL board meeting minutes, the Class number 378 has been agreed and assigned? Hammersfan 11/03/07, 18.46 GMT

Yes, possibly. I am still going to say merge it with 376 due to similarities and modelling, amongst other things. Simply south 19:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So your view is merge with Class 376, not delete? Hammersfan, 11/03/07, 19.40 GMT

The point you seem to be missing is that you shouldn't have to dig around for evidence for something as important as the name of your article. Admittedly, the minutes do make your case a bit stronger, but there's really no hurry to create this article until a number is officially announced. I'm OK with the number being mentioned in Wikipedia, but only with the appropriate framing (ie seen in some documents, but not officially announced). That would preclude the article with this name existing, since that implies it is a hard fact. --Dtcdthingy 20:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In which case just change the article to say that the name is the presumed name but has not been officially announced. Thryduulf 10:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I will maintain that the article should be seperate (and I'll cite the Class 395 article as a precedent) because I'm the advocate, I would find Simply south's suggestion of merging it with the Class 376 article acceptable until such time as TfL announce that this class will be Class 378 in a more public way, if you would also find that acceptable. I am grateful that you do accept the validity of the source I have provided, unlike others. However, I would appreciate knowing the opinions of a few others who may have an interest. Hammersfan, 11/03/07, 21.05 GMT

I agree that this should be separate from the Class 376 article, as the 376s have nothing to do with TfL and thus all the TfL stuff, beyond a single sentence that the trains are similar, would be irrelevant to that article. A good precedent is that the Airbus A380 article was at Airbus A3XX before the name was officially announced. Thryduulf 10:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I believe that the note in agenda item 4 is a strong source supporting Class 378. I would however, consider the artist impression to be less so and in that respect agree with the nominator. I don't think that the picture on its own would support this article but certainty consider the TfL minutes to be a good source, especially as it specifically says that is the classification by Network Rail. It isn't a reference made in passing to the number which would be more likely to be incorrect. Adambro 21:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:CRYSTAL: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. anthonycfc ^[talk] 23:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm afraid I wouldn't agree with that analysis. "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation". Whilst I've previously said that I believe the meeting minutes to be a strong source for the classification, the existence of these trains is under no doubt. This article should certainly not just simply be deleted, it should either be kept as per my reasoning or merged into Class 376 if the TfL source isn't considered strong enough. Another option could be the renaming but I'd be unsure of what a suitable name might be. Adambro 08:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL would apply if the content of the article was speculation, but it isn't. Even the title, which appears to be all you have issue with, has a reliable source. When the name is not certain but the subject is, then we either use a placeholder name or we make it clear in the intro that the name has not been finalised. Thryduulf

• Strong keep - there are multiple reliable sources that back up the existence of the subject of the article, with multiple reliable sources presented that confirm the name. The article is deliberately separate from the Class 376 article because the TfL specific information is not relevant there. If there is doubt that the name has been finalised (I don't believe there is, but others apparently do), then the correct course of action is not to delete the article, but to either move the article to a place-holder name (possibly London Overground rolling stock) or note at the start of the article "British Rail Class 378 is the presumed name...". Thryduulf 10:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But as mentioned in the opening comment, most of the material in this article is covered by London Overground#rolling stock, so the logic next step after your proposed rename is to merge it there. In other words, once you lose the name, there's no reason for this article to exist. --Dtcdthingy 13:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming this article is kept though, it wouldn't be a particular stretch to alter the text in the main London Overground article to have that as a brief summary, and then this as the main bit about the rolling stock. Hammersfan 12/03/07, 13.30 GMT

That would make the most sense as it seems likely that 378 is correct so this article is likely to be expanded to cover a wider scope than what can be included in London Overground#rolling stock. Adambro 15:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep per Thryduulf and Hammersfan. Mackensen (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Thryduulf and Hammersfan. - Axver 22:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, because it doesn't exist yet; leave a re-direct behind, so that afficionados (I'm not syaing crufters) can get to the information. -- Simon Cursitor 07:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure that it not existing yet really justifies merging it, we have plenty of articles about future events. It seems that the only thing really under question is the name. It seems most likely that it will be the 378 and as such I suggest it makes sense to keep it there unless anything emerged to bring the numbering into doubt. As per Thryduulf's comment, it could be a good idea to mention in the article that name and details might be subject to change. Maybe a template like Future London Transport Infrastructure might be appropriate. Adambro 08:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A primary source calling it "Class 378" is reliable enough for confirming simple facts, being primary does not invalidate the source, it just means we should treat it with some caution. Although this is about a future trainset, the article is well-sourced and covers the subject pretty decently. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article, but move it to a less speculative page title, leaving a redirect. I suggest London Overground rolling stock as a possibility. It's not up to TfL what the class number is. The article can still mention the TfL article referring to it as Class 378 though. The article itelf is, on the whole, of a reasonable standard and should not have been sent to AfD. --RFBailey 22:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the thing is the meeting minutes clearly state that it is Network Rail who have classified it as Class 378 Hammersfan, 13/03/07, 22.45 GMT

Hammersfan makes a very valid point in making that distinction. I must agree with the comments by RFBailey with reference to the AfD itself. It would seem strange to delete a perfectly good article when the doubt is just the title. I'd suggest a better approach would have been to discuss this on the talk page as a possible page move or merge. Adambro 22:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not valid at all. Meeting minutes are a record of what individuals have said during the meeting. Minutes are never a reliable source. They are not a definitive statement of anything other than what was said and who said it - even then they not even be right in this. It does not reliably state "This is C378". What it does say reasonably reliably is "Someone in TfL says that someone in NetR says it's C378". Put the useful stuff into London Overground and leave a suitable redirect. Chris cheese 23:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to disagree with you there Chris. Whilst I appreciate the nature of meeting minutes, I don't think they simply are a record of what was said, that would be a transcript. They provide a summary of the topics discussed and matters raised. These minutes are likely to have been distributed to the attendees prior to publication and as such any misinterpretations could be corrected. The statement within the document is clear; "The first trains will be delivered late 2008 and have been categorised by Network Rail as Class 378's". This kind of statement leaves little doubt. So, I would suggest, it makes sense that we use this as the name until something can be presented that might imply an alternative numbering. I would however, welcome suggestions as to how the article might be reworded slightly so as to inform the reader that there is some doubt about the name. Adambro 23:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A sentence in that case could be added saying something like "The Class 378 number was first announced by TfL Commissioner Peter Hendy at an open session meeting of the TfL board on 25 October 2006, but has yet to be officially released" Hammersfan 13/03/07, 23.30 GMT

• Keep - It's real and verified by reliable sources. There's no reason to change the name as that has been specifically reported. If they decide to change the name of them in the futre (I doubt it), we can always to a simple move then. --Oakshade 00:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: while the minutes of a TfL meeting are clearly a more reliable source than, say, the Spring 2007 Newsletter of the Poppleton University Railway Enthusiasts Club (or whatever--I'm exaggerating a bit), it doesn't mean that Class 378 is in any way an official designation for these trains. As I said before, this is not up to TfL, even if they are quoting Network Rail. What do Network Rail say on the subject? The remark about the Airbus A3XX is a red herring: that's what Airbus were calling it themselves before they decided on A380. --RFBailey 01:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked both TfL and Network Rail that very question (well, more specifically "Is the new rolling stock to be classified as Class 378?"), and am waiting for their replies. While, as far as I can see, Network Rail are not bound by the Freedom of Information Act, TfL are and so the question I asked them was phrased as an FOI request. Once I hear from either or both, I will post their replies on the article's talk page. Hammersfan 14/03/07, 11.25 GMT

• Keep at least pending a response to Hammersfan from TfL, and in my opinion, keep for good - this seems an entirely reasonable article. AlexTiefling 12:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As above, a train/train set/rake is to be ordered, it will be significantly different from the 376s, thus an article with sources (what we've got) should reasonable be aloud to exist. now the title is IMHO what your all arguing over. Thus keep, a) pending Hammersfan FOIA response, b) something is going to happen - ie at worst case merge back into 376 (where info used to be). Pickle 14:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - going to the trouble of adding the unit number to a mock up isn't something that would be done if the class number was just pie in the sky edd 14:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I work for Network Rail and I have a copy of the Technical Description for the Traction Characteristics from Bombardier Transportation. I am happy to scan a copy of the front cover and put it on the site. Anyhow, the fact remains, that even if the number changes, then we can simply change it!! The content will not alter, and thats more important than a classification number.ALECTRIC451 15:12, 15 March 2007 (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.