Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Track warrant


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Track warrant

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article has been tagged for lack of in-line citations for five years. I made a good-faith effort to source the material, but could only find blogs, rail fan sites, and other sources which didn't meet WP:RS. I assume this is a real thing, and I simply wasn't finding the right sources, so I blew it up to a stub which was little more than a WP:DICTDEF, but sourced to what looked like a WP:RS. It turns out, the publisher, iUniverse, is a vanity press, so even that effort was fruitless.

I'm actually hoping somebody can find some good WP:RS for this, because it's probably a notable topic. But, I was unable to find any, so bringing it here for review. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's a real concept. I've replaced the vanity source with Brian Solomon's Railroad Signaling. A merge to Glossary of North American railway terms may be appropriate, but it's a valid topic either way. Mackensen (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the better source. Could you make it even better by providing a relevant quote?  See my earlier citation for an example of how that's done.  Not strictly necessary, but it would make the citation more useful since it's not available on-line.  -- RoySmith (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. The majority of the North American railroad network is run under TWC.  To Nominate the page for deletion because it lacks in-line citations is incredibly spiteful.  If you have a problem with an article, try the talk page first.Sturmovik (talk) 13:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment This seems like a dictionary definition, and may be more appropriate at Wiktionary per WP:NAD. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not a definition, it's a major type of railroad block operation distinct from tokens and absolute block. RoySmith deleted most of the article due to reference problems then, because it was a stub, proposed it for deletion.  The article has been restored and the reference problems fixed.  This deletion request needs to be closed.Sturmovik (talk) 12:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't propose it because it was a stub. I proposed it because it didn't have any good sources.  I'm still concerned about the quality of the sources.  The Solomon book certainly looks like it's probably a WP:RS, but I'm disappointed that User:Mackensen didn't take me up on my request to improve the reference with a quote.  I live in New York, so I'm blessed with one of the best public libraries in the world.   Unfortunately, they don't have a copy of this book, so I couldn't go look at it myself.  The GCOR Rulebook is a WP:PRIMARY source.  We need WP:SECONDARY sources.  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The book's available on Google Books, and I've never been a major fan of quoting in references. Voyageur Press is a reputable publisher; Solomon has written numerous books and has been published in Trains. Mackensen (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Google Books is non-deterministic about which pages it shows. When I tried to look this up a few days ago, it wouldn't show me the page you cited, 135.  When I went back to it now, I'm getting page 135.  Saying that you're not a fan of quoting just says you're not a fan of providing the best material that we can for our readers.  We want our readers to be able to verify everything that's in the encyclopedia.  If something is reliably on line, we can do that by providing a link.  If something's not on line (or only on line in some screwy way like Google Books which may or may not show a particular page on a given day), providing a quote is a good way to ensure the reader can find the material.  That's why under WP:CITE, it says, A footnote may also contain a relevant exact quotation from the source. This is especially helpful when the cited text is long or dense. A quotation allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference. Quotes are also useful if the source is not easily accessible.  That certainly applies here.  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The article has been expanded greatly since my comment. I don't agree with the deletion of stubs merely because they are stubs, and "probably a notable topic" usually means it will be kept in some form. Should it be moved to Track warrant control to describe the system rather than the method of authorization? Jack N. Stock (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * More like restored than expanded, but re-naming the article to Track Warrant Control would be fine. I hadn't even noticed the name might just apply to the form. Currently Track Warrant Control redirects to Track Warrant.Sturmovik (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to move it as soon as this is over, assuming nobody else does it first. On the basis of the article being about a railway control system, it is a clear keep. Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge Railways usually have some system of keeping trains apart and we have an extensive article about related methods at token (railway signalling), "... a written authority to enter the single line section, referred to as the ticket."  There are therefore sensible alternatives to deletion which we prefer per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 10:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly supports an article. We can accept a cite to a book even if the page is not (or always) available on google.  And we can cite to a rulebook or similar document for what it itself says (not an interpretation of what it means, but what it says)-- we don't need a secondary source for what it says.  And to avoid an argument on that, quotes work best.  Kablammo (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of the citations to the GCOR Rulebook are indeed interpretations of what it means. I'm sure the author of this article was a subject matter expert, and probably knows this stuff so well that it's obvious what it all means.  But to me, a relative layman, I look at the referenced sentence in the article, and at the cited section in the rulebook, and it's not clear to me how you got from one to the other.  It's obvious at this point that this article is going to be kept.  And, yes, I know AfD is not cleanup, but this really needs better sourcing.  A fundamental requirement of the encyclopedia is that everything should be verifiable.  For every fact stated in an article, I should be able to find a WP:RS which confirms that the fact is true.  Taking an article which is mostly original research and saying, "Here's the rulebook, it's all there" may meet the letter of law as far as WP:V goes, but it's not doing our best job to write an encyclopedia.  -- RoySmith (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2018 (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.