Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington and Old Dominion Railroad routes and stations

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 23:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Washington and Old Dominion Railroad routes and stations[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)

Currently stubified WP:POVFORK by now indeffed user.[1]

Block was specifically for creating this page to circumvent consensus against it on Washington and Old Dominion Railroad That had to do with issues of WP:INDISCRIMINATE lists of stations, external links, etc. that was already attempted at the parent article[2], so there is nothing to merge from the article history, and isn't a useful redirect for search terms since it's redundant. Technically not available for CSD because it's in the very short period between blocks, and the PROD was removed. KoA (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory, and that's all this article was. - Aoidh (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless POVFORK that never should have been created. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Horrid horrid sourcing to images and other non-RS. Longwinded post on creator's talk page about this AFD. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editors can have any opinion that they want. The creator of the AfD under discussion *here* has no other place to put their thoughts on this AfD other than their talk page since they are now blocked. Longwinded or short & succinct....why should the length have any bearing on this discussion.

Also - what is this "horrid sourcing" you speak of? If some of the content is sourced to unreliable sources, then that content could be removed leaving the rest but I am not seeing a widespread overarching issue. A few examples of unworthy sources would be helpful. Shearonink (talk) 15:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's an entire column of ELINKBODY violations in all of the tables, linking to various maps and nonfree images of stations. We have Commons to fufill that purpose. [3] is an image that is A) hosted on Pinterest and is more likely than not than an CVLINK violation, and B) an image that is supporting a reference of text. Images can be interpreted in many different ways, even if you find one to be obvious. An image must be interpreted by a secondary source for it to be usable on Wikipedia, otherwise we interpret the image ourselves and produce OR. Ref #4 in the article (has multiple links within the reference) is entirely to maps, which are not reliable because they can be interpreted in multiple ways. Most of this article is to maps, which does not provide significant commentary to merit a FORK of the main article. The cited pages in much of this ref [4] are to maps and images, which cannot be construed as definite notability.

First choice is to delete as an unencyclopedic collection of links, POVFORK, and a directory, and probably not a notable topic on its own. Second choice is a well referenced, succint, and detailed list with none of the insanity of entire columns containing external links to facebook images in the body. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still don't know what the term "longwinded" has to do with this AfD but ok. Shearonink (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A map is a reliable source if it is compiled or published by a reliable source. A historical marker is a reliable source if it is created by a trustworthy source. A railroad is not just two strands of steel. It represents an area of economic and social development facilitated by the creation and operation of the railroad. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This comment doesn't seem to be addressing the topic at hand. Relevant information that already got consensus related to specific locations is already at the parent article Washington and Old Dominion Railroad. The page nominated is just indiscriminate information that already exists as rejected edits in the parent article's page history. If the page creator hadn't been flat out blocked for this creation, then we'd also probably be discussing a full on WP:SALT of the article. KoA (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eastmain's "this comment" is speaking to the deletion discussion at hand. Are previous discussions at another article - yeah, the parent article but a different article - supposed to hold sway over any other particular AfD? Maybe, but maybe not. I am certain whomever is the Closer on this AfD doesn't need any of us to point out how they should do their job or what they should pay attention to. Shearonink (talk) 15:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eastmain's comments were extremely superficial and not really addressing the subject the blocked editor tried to carve out through disruptive editing. Not to mention no inherent claims to WP:N were even made. The actual article, Washington and Old Dominion Railroad, is not up for AfD here and is where relevant information related to those points would be held anyways. If someone wanted to do a true WP:SPLIT they could develop that at the actual article first.

As for your comments, that would violate WP:NOTBUREAU policy. The article was created through disruptive editing to create a WP:POVFORK, and the blocks/ANIs were clear on that. There are no maybes about that on closed discussions. We're just going through the formalities for deletion at this point on something that already wasted a lot of community time. Unfortunately we don't have speedy deletion criteria for instances that fall through the cracks like this, so here we are instead. KoA (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assume other editors around here are competent at their chosen level of participation, so I try to be careful of judging others motives or their editing qualifications - that's all. It just seemed that some/many of the respondents were telling possible Closers how to do their jobs and casting aspersions about other editors' comments and I don't understand why that is at all necessary.

It's always so much fun happening upon an AfD or some other pocket of Wikipedia, stating an opinion, and falling into a hornets' nest. Have fun y'all, I'm out. Shearonink (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as noncompliant with the policies and guidelines mentioned by nom and all above. Avilich (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete conduct of the creator aside (and see his Keep on his Talk), this article's content is not in line with policies. Wikipedia articles to not exist to be a repository of useful information, if it's not notable and documented in reliable secondary sources. There is no doubting that these stations exist, or that Facebook and Pinterest house article that mention them, but no case has been made for encyclopedic notability. Star Mississippi 15:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater ^(talk) 14:50, 13 November 2021 (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.