Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of railway pioneers


 * 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 speedy keep, it's snowing. (NAC)--Jmundo (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

List of railway pioneers

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Listcruft. 'someone who has made an outstanding contribution to the historical development of the railroad' is completely subjective. Ironholds (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep--I'm not with the nominator on this one. Maybe the phrasing of that sentence could be better, but there are some pretty objective standards one could apply--and a quick look at some of the blue-linked names bears that out. I'm voting weakly, because I see so many different opinions on what makes a list appropriate for inclusion, but this one seems like a good candidate to me. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- I'm with Drmies on this one. Its not the greatest list ever, but it does seem a noteworthy topic that can be done and done well. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But not in the format it is in at the moment; the entries are all subjective. It should be done, and it should be done right, but not like this. Ironholds (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but thats a problem that can be solved with cleanup, not deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. As a railway historian and fan I found this list very useful and informative, which is why I subsequently translated it from German Wikipedia. I accept that, as it stands, it is largely (not completely) subjective. However there are various ways we can deal with that without throwing out a useful list (high importance in rail transport project):


 * We take out the 'outstanding contribution' statement and replace it with other tighter words.
 * We define what counts as 'outstanding' in the article or on the discussion page e.g. builder of first national railway, inventor of a new locomotive type or key component, chief mechanical engineer of a major railway company, etc.
 * We extract the list from outside sources e.g. if it's in an extant list of important railway people in the Encyclopedia of World Railways we cite that (lots of citations - one per person!).

At least give it time to mature from its initial start state. The strength of Wikipedia is its multiple-authorship. Bermicourt (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep pending potential improvement – it can always be renominated if it hasn't expanded in a couple of months – and a resounding WP:TROUT to the nominator for AFDing a new article thirty seconds after creation. What happened to Tag the article and discuss the issues? –  iride scent  18:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Resounding trout to iridiscent; what happened to checking the facts before trouting the user? A prod was placed, the prod was removed and a rationale given. I disagreed with the rationale, so took it to AfD. Ironholds (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you looking at the same article history I'm looking at? –  iride scent  19:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep — I think that is a record - one minute after creation we get an AFD nomination. Anyways, give the article a chance. My guess that something worthy of inclusion will surface. MuZemike  ( talk ) 19:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: The list has expanded descriptions beside the names, does not suffer from the large number of redlinks which are applauded because they encourage new WP buds, does more than a category, and has value. I believe that it would benefit from citations for the people so listed, though. Lack of citation implies lack of notability, line by line.  But this is a job that should be given a chance to be done.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2009 (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.