Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sousse–Kairouan Decauville railway

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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sousse–Kairouan Decauville railway

[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)

Dunno if this should be a delete or a merge, but this is about a minor railway line’s time when using one guage versus another. Such upgrading was extremely common, and not remarkable. Qwirkle (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwirkle: The article about this railway, which provided passenger transport, should be kept, please. Please feel free to rename it, for instance Sousse–Kairouan railway and add some paragraphs about its use after being re-gauged. I could not find any article into which it should be merged, and find the tone of this discussion very upsetting. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think this nomination kind of misses the point. It isn’t that a stretch of railway changed gauge, that’s just an incidental detail. The context (not explicit from the article) and the likely notability is that this was one of the earliest railways in Tunisia (possibly even the earliest, though I’m not sure of that). I’d like to ping members of Wikiproject Tunisia to see if anyone can contribute, and search for some sources. I think this railway is probably notable and will see what I can find. Mccapra (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that might be missing another point. Decauville (and its knock-offs) was a dead-standard approach to all kinds of transportation and material handling needs from 1875 (hadda look that up to be sure) until just past WWI worldwide, and lasted much further in some other areas. I’ve seen it in active agricultural use, and I’m not that old. I’d bet this was only one of many major uses of the stuff in Tunisia.

Also, realignments are also rather common, and this is the line which, eventually, made its way out to Kasserine. The (realigned) route is still very much in use, and played a considerable part in some historical events as well. We don’t need 17 different stubs popping up, like the train wreck, if you’ll excuse the expression, around Alcatraz. Qwirkle (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies I don't think I understand the Alcatraz analogy. If your point is that Decauville railways were commonplace and we don't need an article about every single one of them that makes sense to me. Nevertheless I think that the context of this particular one is important. France invaded Tunisia in April 1881 so this must have been one of the earliest pieces of colonial infrastructure, and absolutely key to the occupation of the interior. I've found it wasn't the earliest railway in the country but it looks like the first colonial railway. Still looking. Mccapra (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alcatraz is one of those subjects that honestly deserves four or five articles, so it has...Hell, I dunno. At least a dozen. Maybe 20. They include three or four completely unremarkable buildings, and a rock. (Yep. you read that right. Yer basic litorral boulder.)

That said, I may have jumped the gun on this one: this might be the original major military field use of portable light railways, and quite notable as such. Qwirkle (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources establish enough notability. This is an area with poor coverage, so articles on the subject (railways in Tunisia) are to be encouraged. Mjroots (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that sounds like damning with faint praise, doesn’t it? Qwirkle (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwirkle: No, it is not. Everything in the article is referenced. Just stating facts, coverage of railway in Tunisia is sparse, and artilces such as this, which is bordering on start class, are to be encouraged. Mjroots (talk) 08:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- It's a splendid article with references, at least in comparison to hundreds of other unreferenced articles on mere stations, not even whole sections or lines. Unsigned comment by Rhadow 02:14, 26 February 2019‎

WP:OSE? Qwirkle (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Qwirkle, OSE applies, in this case positively. The topic of this article is notable as measured by the number of good references. It does compare positively to other unreferenced articles. The encyclopedia would be better, IMO, with this article and without the others. Rhadow (talk) 11:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can certainly agree that every bus stop, whistle halt, and seasonal cattle loading platform does not need to be imortalized on Wiki, as they too often are. Having dug a little more into the line’s history, this might be a keeper per se. Qwirkle (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing a historic railway line to "every bus stop, whistle halt, and seasonal cattle loading platform" is simply an apples to oranges red herring and not helpful to this discussion. Oakshade (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I havent seen where anyone was doing that. Where did you? Qwirkle (talk) 03:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here, by you.Oakshade (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mean in the edit where I wrote Having dug a little more into the line’s history, this might be a keeper per se. and That said, I may have jumped the gun on this one: this might be the original major military field use of portable light railways, and quite notable as such.? Kewl. Qwirkle (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you are sensitive. You're making attacks at editors[1] who simply disagree with your AfD - in this case that's everybody. Take a breather and move on. Oakshade (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sensitive? Because I point out you obviously didn’t read what you were allegedly replying to? Tubular. Qwirkle (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Qwirkle, I doubt you'll find agreement with your line, "every whistle stop." If a village has a halt listed in the national database (scheduled or flagged), its article is secure forever, whether or not the article has a reference. Propose a deletion and all sorts of cultural brickbats will fall on your head. Rhadow (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don’t expect agreement; I’m merely pointing out that it is nuts, and contrary to an attempt to create an encyclopedia. There’s no reason why that sort of thing, if it must be kept, can’t be rolled up into some actually notable subject. Qwirkle (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a verified railway line with historic coverage.Oakshade (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a general rule, all railway lines of any length are clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might wanna rewrite this; it has two potential meanings, and one of them is that every single minor spur not owned by the railroad it connects to is notable. “Of any length” can be taken literally as “of any length whatsoever.”

That said, plowing through some French and Italian sources, this does appear to be the Ur-feldbahn, so to speak, and deserves coverage as such. Qwirkle (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't want to rewrite it. It's perfectly obvious what I meant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a historic railway with sufficient sourcing for a stand-alone article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta keep the stats up, eh? Qwirkle (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agree with K.e.coffman. Legion X (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2019 (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.