Talk:British Rail Class 309
Add topic | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
Citations, campaigns, and edit warring
[edit]This article is flagged as needing additional citations and I am attempting to start to sort this issue. Whilst the attempt to preserve the unit is presently non-notable. the fact that the second unit is for sale appears to have had consensus for a fairly long time. The new reference for this fact is one that is available to Wikipedians, rather than a closed link to a paper source. It is also in general media rather than enthusiast media.
Although I support the fact that the preservation attempt is not fit for inclusion in body text, I would ask that external links are not constantly deleted as this is disruptive to the efforts to improve this page. Despite claims by the editor deleting content, I have no connection with the group attempting to preserve the unit. Neith-Nabu (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Neith-Nabu: Given the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#References that appeal for funds your re-introduction of content at Special:Diff/1067076786 seems extremely inappropriate and I've reverted it. (Please note this was before my contribution at 16:20, 21 January 2022 to that article which occurred in parallel). You would need to gain concensus for that here and I do not believe that passes RS (and no signs of a press release) which would be needed given the degree of promotionalism in that source initially introduced by a COI editor). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Furthermore, whether or not an item is for sale right now is of interest to eBay, not Wikipedia. It is wp:not notable, transient wp:trivia and not encyclopedic. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)