Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E&BV Subdivision (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to List of CSX Transportation lines . -- RoySmith (talk) 12:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E&BV Subdivision

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:STATION, WP:GNG, and WP:NCORP. My BEFORE search showed a bunch of fan sites plus mere mentions but nothing passing CORDEPTH. Spdfile1 refused to allow this to redirect to the article about CSX (the parent company) so I'm asking for deletion. This article was deleted before for similar reasons. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to List of CSX Transportation lines which says almost as much about this line as the article does. A mass redirection of other minor CSX lines is also in order. Mangoe (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue AfD is not a todo list for AfD volunteers. As per WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT, content discussions belong on the talk page of the article. Unscintillating (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Hi User:Unscintillating, or others, can you explain more, please? It appears this is an issue about splitting out content to sub-articles or not, which is an editing decision. Is AFD the wrong forum to get consensus to proceed with merging them back in? Perhaps similarly, I have nominated 29 split-out NRHP articles for deletion, in ongoing AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bert and Fay Havens House, where I am getting rocky reception about it so far. Perhaps the problem here and there is that an RFC is needed, different than an AFD? I would be grasping, though, to explain why that would be the case. --do ncr am 19:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a quote from WP:Deletion policy, oldid=797578780:

===Editing and discussion===

If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page...

Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum.

"Editing" includes merging and redirecting, which also have sections at WP:Deletion policy. I'm not familiar with the merge forum (WP:PAM?), but AFAIK there is no central forum for changing an article to a redirect. Unscintillating (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear what is actually happening here, try to gain consensus on whether it should be Keep, Redirect or Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Guy into Books (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a todo list for AfD volunteers. I understand the sentiment. The counterargument is also valid: An article ends up at AfD after talk page discussion and tags have produced no results -- for years in many cases. The article survived a PROD, removed by an editor who added nothing to the page. AfD, with its time element, injects an element of urgency not available elsewhere. The editor who brings a page here feels she has exhausted all other options. The number of articles deleted here shows that it is an effective tool against unnecessary pages. Rhadow (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of CSX Transportation lines; it's hard to imagine that a 40-mile stretch of railroad would be independently notable, and I don't believe this to be the case, per lack of sources. The entry on the list article is sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though I'm not strongly opposed to the redirect to List of CSX Transportation lines. If the railroad wants to claim that a route is a different subdivision every 40 miles they're welcome to do so, but that doesn't make each subdivision notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.