Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worst railway accidents in Australia


 * 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 to continuing discussion on whether to move/rename the article, but the outcome is definitely not delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Worst railway accidents in Australia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are already comprehensive lists at Railway accidents in Victoria, Railway accidents in New South Wales, and so on for each Australian state. This article is unsourced, does not make any claim to its own notability, and is essentially a badly organised formatted duplication of existing content. Triptothecottage (talk) 11:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep but rename and prune down to a short list. Since comprehensive articles exist for each state, there should be a list article for Australia as a whole that readers can use for navigation. Either Railway accidents in Australia or List of railway accidents in Australia sounds like a logical choice for me. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC) P.S. I have formatted the list that was provided at the start of the article (and added Queensland). My idea is that everything that follows the list of links should be deleted. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Move Keep and rename.  List of / Railway accidents in Australia is a useful and likely search term.  List of list articles do not necessarily need references and GNG is not relevant.  Could also still have a summary still to the worst accidents. 23:31, 6 February 2017‎ Aoziwe (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I like this idea. Once the discussion is closed I'll prune the list to the worst 5-10 and move to an appropriate page. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Trust me, "worst 5-10" is not a good idea. You then need to decide how bad something must be to be in the list. Maintenance will be required as people try to add other events to the list. It is unnecessary trouble. So a simple list that provides links to the state lists is sufficient. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Move and rename as the current title and content fails WP:LISTCRITERIA due to the subjective nature of "worst" in the selection criteria. As a list of lists, it could be edited to be appropriate, but that requires stripping out almost everything but the blue links.  Jim Miller  See me 18:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep is the AFD outcome to take, for when keeping it is the consensus as here, with agreement that moving/renaming is reasonable too. -- do ncr  am  18:39, 13 February 2017 (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.