Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Subdivision


 * 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 no consensus. A "neutral" deletion rationale (?) and no consensus present. Feel free to take your own editorial action on this article but this discussion is not going anywhere as Deletion doesn't seem to be anyone's preference here. Liz Read! Talk! 04:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Charlotte Subdivision

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

NeutralThe following article was made a revert with 0 discussion I made this a discussion so people can contest against this and any editors can add more sources to establish notability I won't be playing any sides in this discussion. NotOrrio (talk) 05:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 20.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 05:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and North Carolina.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of CSX Transportation lines as before . Please read WP:BLAR and stop wasting editors' time. This is not notable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Changing my redirect target to Wilmington, Charlotte and Rutherford Railroad, which was created by Mackensen. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I also can't help but wonder how you even found this article. Were you looking at my contributions? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge to Florence Division. That is another more specific list-type article. Rather than just redirecting, Florence Division should be reformatted into a table with some basic info about each line. (note: per WP:BLAR, objecting and discussing is quite acceptable). MB 19:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, that article should be deleted, because Wikipedia is not a train timetable. We absolutely are not governed by how CSX internally organizes its rail lines. There are hundreds of these pointless stubs, and almost all merit redirection to another article. Let me ask you this: what here is even worth merging? Reference 1 is a wiki and cannot be considered reliable, while reference 2 is a primary source, and literally a timetable. WP:NOTTIMETABLE exists for a reason. This subdivision belongs as an entry on the overall list, nothing more, which is why I redirected it there. The reason articles like this have languished as stubs with no reliable secondary sourcing is that they are not notable, no matter how much some foamers think they are.
 * And I am well within my rights to question how the OP found my redirect and undid it, considering they've shown zero interest in anything besides Australian buses and train stations until now, and have previously directed personal attacks towards me. I find it hard to believe this wasn't retaliatory. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not sure what to make of the underlying drama here, but I would consider a nearly 100-mile-long railway line to be presumptively notable. The currently article is inadequate, yes, though maybe not so inadequate as all that. WP:NOTTIMETABLE doesn't really apply here, where an employee timetable is used for mileage and connections to other pieces of physical infrastructure. The most obvious areas of expansion would be the companies that originally built it, and when, and perhaps a survey of former passenger service over the line. Mackensen (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at the corporate history; the line was probably built by the Wilmington, Charlotte and Rutherford Railroad and the Carolina Central Railroad, successor to the former. This was all part of the Seaboard by 1900 or so. Mackensen (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's entirely possible there's a notable rail line here. But that does not mean that we have to say this particular subdivision is notable, unless it is the same stretch of track. This article, and a bunch more, were all mass created by a railfan with no regard to if they made sense as articles; they were simply mass produced with no secondary sources. We should not necessarily be organizing our articles by subdivisions, which are simply pieces of track that someone in Jacksonville decided to organize in a certain way. I'm of the belief many if not most subdivisions should end up like the Fitzgerald Subdivision, merged into an article on the company that built the line. Some may be standalone notable, but not this one. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: I'm tempted to do a Procedural close here as the nominator is "Neutral" and hasn't presented a deletion rationale. AFDs are not started to argue about redirects and reverts, those discussions should occur on the article talk page. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Went back to check on this AFD seems that Trainsandotherthings got quite mad because I checked his contributions to clarify this happened because I saw that he AFd two articles on wikiproject buses I believed he had added afds to some other articles, I wanted to make sure the articles were deleted with discussion and that the article would be deleted in a way which is easy to restore if notability can be achieved,   so I checked his contributions he redirected an article with 0 discussion (this one). Since he doesnt want me to check his contributions I decided to respect his wishes by doing so. Keep in mind this user has admitted to checking contributions, has also accused me of bad faith for contesting against an AFD and has consistently shown that he is unwilling to change his point of view in AFD discussions and forces others opon his views. Overall this AFD isn't a waste atleast 5 editors have made contributions to this page and only 1 person is in favour of making the mage a redirect.  NotOrrio (talk) 13:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So we have:
 * An admission that you specifically targeted me
 * Accusations of bad faith ("forces others opon his views")
 * Admitting that this AfD was started because you're mad I, along with many others, voted to redirect your non-notable bus articles
 * You'll also notice nobody is actually arguing that this article can stand on its own. But sure, I'm just an evil deletionist trying to impose my views on everyone else. Keep pushing that narrative, buddy. I checked your contributions because you had a history of trying to disrupt and circumvent AfD, and lo and behold, I caught you doing exactly that. Not sure how I'm the bad guy here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * I agree this should be a procedural close. The nom has not presented a rationale for not redirecting other than it was done without prior discussion.  There is nothing to discuss if no rationale for or against the action is presented. SpinningSpark 22:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge with CSX Transportation. This is part of something notable; not notable on its own. Rublamb (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Merging an individual subdivision, one of the several hundred CSX owns, to the CSX article, is not appropriate (think merging the article on a tiny Indian village to India, it would be pointless). This belongs at the list of CSX lines, where it is already included, and at the article for the company which originally built the line. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2022 (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.