Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 in rail transport
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. --- RockMFR 16:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 2017 in rail transport
Page has no facts/events scheduled. Page should be recreated when an event/events need to be added. The "completion of London crossrail scheme" should be moved to some article about future rail transport events.Flaminglawyer 21:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- keep for the same reason we have an article about 2017 itself, to list events related to the topic that are scheduled for or expected to occur in that year. The Crossrail completion is the only event that has been officially announced so far. Slambo (Speak) 21:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete the CRYSTAL BALL. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- keep I agree with Slambo, as with any industry the Railroad industry is constantly changing. These changes don't happen overnight they are proposed years in advance. This article allows those interested in the railroad industry to read about such changes as they are proposed. Flaminglawyer wrote: "...should be moved to some article about future rail transport events." 2017 in rail transport is about the future of rail transport (In case you hadn't noticed). The article belongs here. --Dp67 | QSO | Sandbox | UBX's 22:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I was initially thinking "delete," because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but I found that we have a number of pages that cover future years and detail events expected to occur in those years, such as 2058. We also have a number of templates for handling those pages. Consequently, since this really doesn't involve predicting the future but only listing and discussing events scheduled to happen at known times in the future, I'm for keeping this article. --Tkynerd 22:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I, too, was initially going to suggest deletion for similar reasons above. I am however, in favor of keeping this article because it talks about a rail project that is scheduled to complete in the future; it is not a blind prediction of of the future a-la a crystal ball. VCA 16:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per above comments. STORMTRACKER 94 11:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The article is appropriately tagged with {{future}}. There's nothing in principle wrong with this and particularly for major engineering works there are multi-year schedules. The only issue is that schedules slip, but ... we've got ten years, I think we can catch it when that does happen. Nominator's proposal for an article on "future rail transport events" would look exactly like this one, as far as I can tell. --Dhartung | Talk 14:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per above. --Anthony5429 16:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete All that this article is, really, is a statement that the London Crossrail is projected to be completed in this year and has no other information about anything else confirmed to be projected to happen in that year. The content of this article is covered already in significant detail in the Crossrail article, which makes the existence of this article pretty redundant. I would suggest a redirect, but "2017 in rail transport" doesn't even seem to me like a likely search term. I'm actually quite confused by all of the "keep" !votes in this AfD, as I am typically all for keeping/salvaging articles and information when no one else is, but this seems like a no-brainer to delete as redundant. LaMenta3 18:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The fact that there isn't currently any other content on this page doesn't mean there never will be, so that's no reason for deletion. Look at 2010 in rail transport, for example. It only started out with one event, but has accumulated more as that year has drawn closer. So is it likely to be with this article. This isn't a likely search term, but many of our articles' names aren't really likely search terms either due to our naming conventions; this article is more likely to attract some links as time goes by rather than being searched for directly. List of Friends episodes isn't a particularly likely search term either, but it makes a great link from Friends. --Tkynerd 22:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- This seems like an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument to me. Your example using the list of Friends episodes is also a sort of false comparison. Articles/lists like that are often made as forks from the main topic article to present additional information that would make the main article unwieldy. Most [year] in [subject area] articles, particularly ones listing future events, are just redundant listings of information already available in a set of related articles, and their inclusion there does not make those articles unwieldy. If anything, these should be categories rather than articles. LaMenta3 18:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Using this article, we can keep the citations to reliable sources with the listings of future events and keep them all in one place so we can go back and edit them as appropriate in the future when the events come to pass or are rescheduled. Also, data from the rail transport timeline series of articles are used in building and maintaining Portal:Trains when I go through and make updates to the portal. I'm updating something on the portal almost daily to keep it up to date and to maintain its Featured Portal status. For example, when I added the note about the discussions to open cross-border freight service between North and South Korea in the news section, I used the timeline pages to find the information on and the link to the previous milestone of test cross-border passenger trains earlier this year. Slambo (Speak) 18:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Your arguments don't make any sense to me. I've never before heard anyone argue that Wikipedia should avoid duplication of information at all costs; indeed, for the sake of usability it is frequently helpful to have information in more than one place, which means it can be found more easily. You also haven't addressed my point that even if there is only one item on this page today, there will probably be more items here later on as we get closer to 2017. Finally, it seems you're arguing against having any [year] in [subject area] articles at all, and I don't think you're going to find consensus on that at all. Your argument seems to amount to WP:ITBOTHERSME. --Tkynerd 22:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't "bother" me at all. In fact, I attach no emotional qualification to my opinion about this article or others very much like it. Also, I never said that duplication of all information should be avoided "at all costs." There are in fact times where duplication of information is useful, particularly in cases of subject matter forks where a main article might include a very brief summary of some information that helps with the understanding of that main article, but the same information is repeated and laid out in greater detail in a fork article. In this case, I simply don't think that an article about 2017 in rail transport brings anything new to the table in the subject area of rail transport. Its existence doesn't add to the understanding about the London Crossrail, nor would it add to the understanding of any other items that would potentially be added later. I make this qualification on the fact that none of the other articles that I have looked at that are truly similar (as this one is admittedly underdeveloped since it is so far in the future) amount to much more than non-enlightening lists. It is simply my opinion that this sort of classification would be better served by being a category rather than an article. I presented that as a constructive alternative to completely wiping it out, as I honestly believe that the classification could be useful, but not so much in its current form. LaMenta3 02:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- The problem with a list, as I see it, is that the relevant information may be buried in the linked article and hard to find. For instance, a major rail project may be opened in stages and thus might show up on multiple "year" lists, but it would probably be difficult to dig into the article and figure out exactly what is happening in any one of those years. An article like 2017 in rail transport makes it immediately clear what is happening in 2017. To my mind, that's the value it provides. An article like this, when fully developed, also contributes to a more global view of events than one can get from a list, especially since an article like Crossrail will show up on a list with no context, including geographical context. That's what an article can better provide than a list. Again, compare 2010 in rail transport for a good example. --Tkynerd 02:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't "bother" me at all. In fact, I attach no emotional qualification to my opinion about this article or others very much like it. Also, I never said that duplication of all information should be avoided "at all costs." There are in fact times where duplication of information is useful, particularly in cases of subject matter forks where a main article might include a very brief summary of some information that helps with the understanding of that main article, but the same information is repeated and laid out in greater detail in a fork article. In this case, I simply don't think that an article about 2017 in rail transport brings anything new to the table in the subject area of rail transport. Its existence doesn't add to the understanding about the London Crossrail, nor would it add to the understanding of any other items that would potentially be added later. I make this qualification on the fact that none of the other articles that I have looked at that are truly similar (as this one is admittedly underdeveloped since it is so far in the future) amount to much more than non-enlightening lists. It is simply my opinion that this sort of classification would be better served by being a category rather than an article. I presented that as a constructive alternative to completely wiping it out, as I honestly believe that the classification could be useful, but not so much in its current form. LaMenta3 02:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- This seems like an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument to me. Your example using the list of Friends episodes is also a sort of false comparison. Articles/lists like that are often made as forks from the main topic article to present additional information that would make the main article unwieldy. Most [year] in [subject area] articles, particularly ones listing future events, are just redundant listings of information already available in a set of related articles, and their inclusion there does not make those articles unwieldy. If anything, these should be categories rather than articles. LaMenta3 18:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The fact that there isn't currently any other content on this page doesn't mean there never will be, so that's no reason for deletion. Look at 2010 in rail transport, for example. It only started out with one event, but has accumulated more as that year has drawn closer. So is it likely to be with this article. This isn't a likely search term, but many of our articles' names aren't really likely search terms either due to our naming conventions; this article is more likely to attract some links as time goes by rather than being searched for directly. List of Friends episodes isn't a particularly likely search term either, but it makes a great link from Friends. --Tkynerd 22:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Many rail projects are major undertakings and will take over a decade to complete. Some will take less. The Crossrail is officially announced as one of those to be completed in 2017 and the list will only expand. --Oakshade 05:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
