Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1795 in rail transport

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. 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. dbenbenn | talk 02:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1795 in rail transport

It appears that the only 1795 event in rail transport was the birth of a single person. If that's the case, I don't think we really need to keep this entire page. -MatrixFrog 06:07, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep This page is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains timeline Category:Timeline of rail transport. slambo 11:12, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Further comment: I am slowly going through my paper references (books and magazines) looking for dates to add to these timeline pages from railroad history around the world. As railroading in the US began in earnest in the mid 1830s, it's quite likely that I'll find additional births to add to the 1795 page. Since I don't know what they are off the top of my head, I can't just blindly add them, but add them as I find them. slambo 19:23, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • It appears that this nomination was never placed on the main VfD page. So, to be fair, I'm adding it today. My vote remains Keep as I am continuing to add data to other "year in rail transport" articles (see my contribution history); besides, the next fact that I find in my resources could also be from 1795 (I've found three births of people significant to rail transport to put on the 1794 in rail transport article, for example). slambo 20:53, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • I admire slambo's sense of due process. Keep. Samaritan 20:59, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • keep --SPUI (talk) 22:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. In general I oppose articles destined to stay very short--if this was a one-off on, say, [[1795 in tree-climbing]] I'd vote to delete, or at least merge/redir somewhere. However, as part of a larger series, short articles are OK by me. Lord knows some of the "year in television", film, etc. articles are likely to remain short. This is one case where I agree fully with Samaritan. Niteowlneils 22:17, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment just how many notable rail transport events could be added to this article? I noticed there is a category for these for every year in rail transport - most of these years just have an entry for birth and death, and nothing much else. No vote as yet. Megan1967 03:08, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Some of the early railroads (in the U.S. at least) bought earlier turnpike companies and used their rights-of-way. Probably at least one of these turnpikes was founded or opened in 1795. --SPUI (talk) 03:34, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it. —RaD Man (talk) 09:06, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and hopefully expand. Capitalistroadster 10:27, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that for these earlier years at least (not sure exactly when) it makes sense to organize them under XXXX in transportation. Me might find these pages have substantially more useful information that isn't spread out. For later years (around the 20th century maybe?) they could be broken off if they're too cluttered. -R. fiend 19:35, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Let's not disrupt someone's project. R. fiend has a point, though. JuntungWu 05:11, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It's part of a serious project. Attacking the fringes of such a project is likely to seem like a cruel payback for all the effort which is being put into it. Philip 04:38, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Kaibabsquirrel 18:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. Carrp | Talk 04:25, 15 Feb 2005 (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 the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.