Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of rail transport before 1700

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 06:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History of rail transport before 1700[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a poorly referenced and not very serious listicle (I wouldn't be that surprised to find some hoax info here...), listing just a few rail-prehistory events. It does not cite any source that tackles this, the date 1700 is chosen seemingly at random. At best, merge referenced parts to the History of rail transport. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Transportation, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:SIRS and GNG Cray04 (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the claims made in the article aren't even sourced, article itself is also lacking in substance, and I don't see how this could be improved upon. Any information pertaining to pre-railway inventions can simply go in the existing article. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 08:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep being unsourced is not a reason for deletion, it is a reason for improvement. The first couple of sections of History of rail transport indicate that there are plenty of other events that could be added to this article which is part of the series of category:years in rail transport articles. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anything that can be sourced can just be added to History of rail transport (as well as part of Rail transport#Wooden rails introduced), which is far more complete pre-1700 anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete as a fork coatracking uncited and dubious claims for Asiatic priority. And yes, 1700 is an arbitrary and arguably wrong cutoff point. Mangoe (talk) 13:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting — Maile (talk)

FYI, Maile66, WP:ITSINTERESTING is not likely to be considered seriously by the closer. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too much forking. Azuredivay (talk) 11:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is too short, lacking any in-depth discussion of the subject, and there is indeed excessive forking. Any pertinent, properly sourced information could indeed be moved to History of rail transport. TH1980 (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2023 (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.