Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1767 in rail transport


 * 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. No prejudice towards discussions about merging or changing scope. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

1767 in rail transport

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Only one entry in list, and that is unsourced. Mdann52 (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - The fact that there is only one item listed on the page so far simply means that editors here haven't searched around as much for items that should be included in the list. The 1760s was a decade in which a number of other railway pioneers could have been born, or inventions necessary for railway technology could have been developed.  I have added three independent sources to the page to take care of the unsourced argument noted above. Slambo (Speak)  14:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - without too much effort, I just found something to put in the events section. More a case of unfinished work than unfinishable work, I'd say. Might be worth getting a WikiProject on to these, but otherwise. Stalwart 111  14:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And I just added two more refs to that entry from items in Google Books (including one originally published in 1831). This is within the scope of WP:Trains, of which I have been a participating member since 2004. Slambo (Speak) 15:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - When this had no events and a single birth, it was borderline; but now it has a referenced non-birth event, it can stay. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename to 1760s in rail transport and merge in the other poor articles such as 1765 in rail transport.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename as per Lugnuts' suggestion above. Andrew327 08:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My only concern with that proposal is that these come from Years in rail transport which includes every year post 1700 (with quite a few redlinks). A new page covering a whole decade would throw that format out of whack (it would be the only one) and would duplicate Category:1760s in rail transport which actually includes three years of that decade and a sub-cat with a page for another year. Stalwart 111  04:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep somehow but I think merging this and other 1760s articles into one 1760s in rail transport would be better. Similarly all other articles in decades before 1800.  There is just not enough possible content for annual articles at this period.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge into decades as above, such articles would be more informative & at this stage most years will not have enough events to be worth individual articles.TheLongTone (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear - that would involve also merging three other articles not listed here and depopulating two categories (effectively deleting them rather than this article). I'm just not sure we should be doing that as the result of a single-article AFD. I am concerned about going down that path from here but not strongly opposed to it as an idea. It would need, I think, the folks from WP:Trains to sort out. And amending their existing structure as the result of one AFD might not be popular. But the option needs to be considered. Stalwart 111  11:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep for now but discuss merge at WikiProject Level via a RFC at WT:TWP. Peterkingiron's suggestion is a good one. Mjroots (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2013 (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.