Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Key of the Gulf Railroad

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 merge and redirect all to List of defunct Florida railroads, except those that have sufficient encyclopedic content for a stub. Doing this is left as an exercise to the reader. Sandstein 19:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Additional note: Will whoever does the merger please also delete the AfD tags and put the {{oldafdfull}} tag on the talk pages? I'm not in the mood for that amount of bureaucracy right now. Thanks. Sandstein 19:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Key of the Gulf Railroad and other defunct/never-built Florida railroads

Key of the Gulf Railroad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Wikipedia doesn't need to have three dozen articles about railroads that never existed or railroads that are defunct when the articles only consist of what Florida law said was necessary to make the railroad come into existence If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 18:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC) I am also nominating the following articles, which are similiar:

  • Merge and redirect all to a single, appropriate article containing information about the history of Florida railroads. Possible exception: Keep any that refer to railroads that had a significant operating history. Newyorkbrad 19:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect all to List of defunct Florida railroads. They were probably all redlinked there to begin with. I don't consider the charter information sufficient for a stub on a railroad. At a minimum I would expect information on its construction dates, closure dates, and notable destinations served. If any can be improved beyond substubs they may be kept. --Dhartung | Talk 20:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect all to List of defunct Florida railroads per Dhartung, but do not salt. These articles can hardly qualify as "articles." Just cutting and pasting text from law books is not encylopedic and I'm having a hard time figuring out which ones actually became railroads and which never were completed. If railfans such as myself or others are so inclined, they can re-write the articles properly. --Oakshade 22:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Does a railroad count as defunct if no track was ever laid? It might make more sense to create an article named "List of never-built railroads of Florida" (with a better name than that) and to merge the articles into that. Or, if nothing else, create a separate section in List of defunct Florida railroads per above. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 23:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect as above seems reasonable. Any of them that are longer than 2–3 paragraphs of law text can probably be kept as-is. If further detail can be added about the railways, the articles can be broken out again at that point. As a side-issue, nominating so many articles at one time without prior discussion is generally unhelpful. JYolkowski // talk 23:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: It looks like they're categorized by whether they were built, and, if so, what company they became part of. --NE2 23:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete outright: The problem with redirects is they aren't really free; they clutter up the namespace with a lot of similar-sounding names that are going to get in the way of the "not knowledgable enough to immediately recognize that these aren't real railroads" searching for real railroads. Mangoe 01:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I would agree with this if these names are confusingly similar to those of railroads that had an operating history. Otherwise, since redirects aren't in categories, I don't think any user would stumble across one of the redirects unless he or she actually input the name of one of these planned or defunct railroads. I would also inquire whether the user who created these entries has been notified of the AfD as he or she might have a view that could help. Newyorkbrad 01:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
SPUI has been contacted as the author of these articles, but the outlook isn't so good, as it looks like SPUI is frustrated with the project, and might have left. Also, these articles are nearly two years old, so SPUI might not be able to help. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I should have checked. I agree that User:SPUI isn't likely to be helpful. I will defer any further comment on redirect-vs.-delete to users more familiar with railroad articles. Newyorkbrad 02:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, this is complicated, but that is what happens with bulk nominations. Railroads are funny things, with some operating solely by leased track, and some never laying tracks (indeed, Amtrak didn't own tracks for the first few years of operation). All told, I prefer the Merge and redirect to a unified article that can discuss the Statute in one consolidated location, unless the railroad has a significant operating history after the statute. Of course, if more information becomes available about a particular road, it can always be spun back off from the central article.-- danntm T C 02:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. "Paper railroads" are a not inconsequential part of railroad history. For instance, a specialty work in the field, Thomas T. Taber III's "Railroad Encyclopedia and Atlas of Pennsylvania", lists all of the railroads in the state that were chartered but never built. That said, many of these proposed railroads are not sufficiently documented to provide material for more than a stub. Condensing them into a single list seems reasonable. Choess 06:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect as Choess --Jollyroger 08:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect all that don't have sufficient content to be worth an article. DO NOT salt the earth in terms of recreation; if someone can say enough about any of these, verifiably, to make an article, I'm OK with them being articles. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect all as Newyorkbrad. DrKiernan 10:22, 2 December 2006 (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.