Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worldwide examples of gauntlet tracks


 * 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 merge to Gauntlet track. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Worldwide examples of gauntlet tracks

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

This article is the very antithesis of WP:NOTDIRECTORY - it attempts to list out every instance of gauntlet tracks in the world. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed. This is fundamentally unencyclopedic. I removed all of this content from the gauntlet track article for these reasons, but it was forked over to this new title. This should be deleted as non-encyclopedic. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge back to gauntlet track. Trainsandotherthings has previously used WP:NOTDIRECTORY to argue against the inclusion of lists of locomotives and most editors disagreed with their broad interpretation of this policy. There is enough context here and so it would appear to be permissable by the first bullet of NOTDIRECTORY. Garuda3 (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn't a list of locomotives, it's a non-encyclopedic listing of instances of gauntlet track globally. What's next, Worldwide examples of manhole covers? This content is not appropriate for Wikipedia, and should not be allowed to ruin the gauntlet track article by filling it with cruft. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a pointless comparison as it would appear there are significantly fewer instances of gauntlet track compared to manhole covers. Also, nobody has bothered to write an article on manhole covers have they? WP:OTHERSTUFF. This page also shows off some of the more interesting images on Wikimedia Commons that would likely never be seen if the content wasn't included in Wikipedia. Garuda3 (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Gee I sure can't wait to read the policy page about how "This page also shows off some of the more interesting images on Wikimedia Commons that would likely never be seen if the content wasn't included in Wikipedia" is a valid reason to keep an article. You wouldn't make up policy, would you?
 * I'm not sure if you know this, but on an article, you can see on the left side of the screen "in other projects" and there's a link to the Wikimedia Commons category with all the gauntlet track images your heart desires. Hope this helps. And that you remember which project we're on. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There IS an article on manhole covers. Somebody has bothered to start it. Peter Horn User talk 19:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The point is there is no list of manhole covers, because that would be an impossible and pointless list, much like this list of gauntlet tracks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There can be tens of manhole covers on a single medium-sized street, most entire countries have fewer than ten examples of gauntlet track. The two are not at all comparable. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: This is a correct application of NOTDIRECTORY. Gauntlet tracks are a commonplace engineering solution, not even remotely notable like locomotives. Maintaining a list of every example would require a massive amount of work, and there almost certainly would not be sufficient reliable sources to have any semblance of verifiability. Wikipedia is not the place for railfan cruft, and showing off images from Wikimedia Commons is not a reason to have an article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Most, if not all, images are self referencing and clearly show what they shuw. Peter Horn User talk 20:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 20:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * User-generated images on Wikipedia and Commons are explicitly not reliable sources per WP:USERGENERATED. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep and perhaps rename as Worldwide list of Gauntlet tracks The texts and images are worth it Peter Horn User talk 20:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. We could provide a few examples in the Gauntlet track article, but gauntlet tracks are very, very common, as Pi mentions. We definitely shouldn't be making lists of gauntlet tracks worldwide. This article seems to directly contravene WP:NOTDIRECTORY, since it is a literal directory of gauntlet track locations. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge as suggested above, it's a fairly standard railroad engineering item; we can list a few of them in the main article, but we don't need examples from every place on earth that has them. Oaktree b (talk) 01:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Gauntlet track already has excessive images (courtesy of Peter Horn); we really do not need more of them there. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Trains... you might go through Wiki and reduce the number of images in all articles that in your opinion have too many. Youll be busy for quite a long time.
 * Peter Horn User talk 04:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. As others have suggested, some examples could be included in the main article. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 01:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep and move per Necrothesp below. Although I still agree with WP:NOTDIRECTORY, NOTDIRECTORY writes that Disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith—just the ones. (emphasis mine) I wouldn't be surprised if there are any notable gauntlet tracks. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 16:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as a gallery at least the images that can be identified bt their captions. See sample the follows. Peter Horn User talk 02:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I have struck your duplicate vote. You may only vote once, Peter Horn. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the two images and captions in question are already present in Gauntlet track. Why do we need the 50 other examples as well? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * If the sole reason for keeping the article is to retain the image gallery, then the gallery would be more appropriately hosted on Wikimedia Commons, not on Wikipedia. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * delete material which is served perfectly well by "Commons has additional media on gantlet track". This is a common feature which we do not need an exhaustive list of, nor a "Lichtenstein has gantlet traces too" bit of filler. Mangoe (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Peter Horn User talk 04:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to List of gauntlet tracks, which would be standard wording on Wikipedia. Perfectly valid list of examples, details and images. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Rename: per Necrothesp. List is valid, contents are excessive. Ensure the various bluelink tracks are sourced, merge the ancillary material to the main article, and cut this down to an unexpanded list. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The "ancillary material" is non-encyclopedic and should be deleted (as should everything in this article). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You have made your opinion very clear already, there is no need to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I comment when I see mis-application of policy. But it seems another RfC is in order if people interpret NOTDIRECTORY in this manner. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because your interpretation of a policy differs from how most other people interpret that policy doesn't mean an RFC is required, it just means that your views are not in accordance with consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's funny, Thryduulf - that's pretty similar to what several people told me about train stations. Then a community-wide RfC was held and it turned out my view was very much in line with global consensus. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Except the conclusion of that RFC, and the outcome of most AfDs since, was a lot closer to the position held by the majority of trains editors (broadly: "if a thorough search fails to demonstrate individual notability then merge and redirect rather than delete, unless it's unverifiable") than the "delete everything that doesn't have detailed sources in the article" you mostly seem to advocate. Thryduulf (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * More misrepresentation. Typical. Please let me know what policy says removing unsourced information is wrong. I'll wait. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a big difference between removing information that can't be sourced after attempts to verify it have failed and deleting an entire article because, despite being entirely verifiable and despite it being a facet of an unquestionably notable topic about which we have an article, a cursory google search doesn't find any sources you regard as in-depth that happen to be in English. I would say that I'm happy to wait for you to learn the difference between notability and verifiability, the difference between merging and deleting, and the difference between an in-depth search for sources in the place, format and language they are most likely to exist and a one minute google search in English, however I'm not happy as you've been here long enough that you should have learned such basics long before now. I am happy to wait however for retraction of the false accusations of misrepresentation. Thryduulf (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Right after you retract your claims that I don't know "the difference between notability and verifiability" or "the difference between merging and deleting". I don't take kindly to liars. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I see evidence on this page (and elsewhere) that you either do not know the difference between notability and verifiability or you do know the difference and choose to ignore it. I was assuming the good faith option when I presumed you did not know the difference, as you have described that assumption as lying then I can only conclude that your actions are not in good faith. I will leave the closing administrator to judge what weight to accord your arguments in the light of that. Thryduulf (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, you want to talk about bad faith? All you ever do is assume bad faith on my part. You assume I am motivated by a desire to delete articles, rather than to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. I am very well aware of the difference between verifiability and notability, or do you think the administrators who granted me AfC and NPP perms were making errors? Your attacks never end, do they? You'd much rather insult other editors than try to actually demonstrate any sourcing exists for anything. When I think an article should be kept, I prove it. You just bloviate about how it's a terrible crime to consider the notability of a train station on an individual basis, or to cite Wikipedia policy. If you think I'm acting in bad faith, either take it to ANI or kindly shut the fuck up, okay? Thank you. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * When inviting someone to reevaluate your faith then a paragraph of ad hominems is not the method I would recommend choosing. I will not be drawn into further comment here. Thryduulf (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename per Necrothesp. This is a perfectly valid spinout list that gives additional detail that would be excessive in the main article but are still nevertheless encyclopaedic. Some of the entries could be perhaps be trimmed, but that's not a reason to delete and AfD is not cleanup. Thryduulf (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge' the Original Posters reasoning is valid. This should be part of the Gauntlet Track article Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge back to Gauntlet tracks, there is no length issue that presents this from being presented as examples within the same article describing the phenomenon. BD2412  T 02:09, 14 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.