Jump to content

Talk:List of heritage railways in Northern Ireland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AfD Discussion

[edit]
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

Heritage railways in Northern Ireland was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. 12 votes to keep, 2 votes to delete. Postdlf 05:23, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Heritage railways in Northern Ireland

[edit]

Tried this on speedy a while back but it was refused. This is little more than a list of links where there is a meager 3 links which are all broken. Delete under terms that there is little or no content with no indication of improvement. - KeithTyler 00:01, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep links being red are not a reason for deletion. - SimonP 03:24, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and put topic in Requested Articles. Articles being merely a list of links is a reason for deletion, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, point 13. Does not fall under the exceptions: disambiguation pages and "it may help to make lists of relevant internal links, as this conveys useful information and helps navigation." Redness is significant here as red links are not either helpful or "relevant." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 10:00, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)Keep in present form. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:40, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. In this case, there is a clear hierachy to this list. Deleting this takes out the middle of the hierachy, so if and when these railways are written about, they fit into the bottom of the hieracy and are properly linked to. IMHO doing this top-down is often better than bottom-up editing as it identifies articles that need to be written rather than them spontaneously appearing. It would not take too much to write a stub with a link to their website. Dunc|☺ 16:10, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Such deletionism really irritates me. What do you think Cleanup is for??? Just because you know nothing about the subject doesn't lessen its worthiness to be in the encyclopaedia. It was a mere 5 minutes to add some essential details on this topic. Please review the latest version. zoney ♣ talk 16:16, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • What I find ironic is that, in order to spite the anti-broken-link sentiment, you added topical information to a list article instead of adding topical information to the actual topical articles (which would, of course, have un-broken the links). And if it belongs on Cleanup, then go ahead and put it there. But given the amount of effort apparent in Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board, it seems that if they were important topics, they would have been created a long time ago. - KeithTyler 18:03, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
      • What an attitude to have on Wikipedia! While I'm sure we don't want frivelous articles on Wikipedia about nothing bands, and non-notable people, I can assure you that these are real places and groups, with a regional level of importance. Yes, we haven't written anything for the articles concerned yet. BIG DEAL! Wikipedia isn't finished yet :-) We don't yet have an article on Sport in Ireland either - does that mean the sport section of Ireland should be deleted! As regards the information I added? Mere summaries. Much better to have them on one page rather than a range of stubs. When the articles are created (and let me assure you, they are for sure on my mental to-do list now) then this page will STILL be useful, as a page about Heritage railways in Northern Ireland in general. Please do not assume that things that seem of little consequence to you don't belong in an encyclopaedia! zoney ♣ talk 21:26, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Good point their is too much friveolous information (particularily on actors and movies, too much is overlapping with the IMDB and often of questionable merit) - but this heritage railways article fits in well with culture, history and geography - it is not the most topical or up-to-date or trendy information and this is part of why it should stay. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and work in progress - make it better and do not delete because something is a stub or incomplete. Also it is a good way of subsectioning rather than putting it into a history or topical article. Djegan 22:03, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Good stuff. Antandrus 16:19, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep not worthy of a deletion Kiand 16:39, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: What's a "heritage railway?" I don't find out. It looks like a series of rail museums. Ok. Good. List of rail museums in Northern Ireland would be fine. This article's title promises a discussion of "heritage railways," whatever those are, and it does not deliver. I can't believe that people are reading the same article I am. Either rename it and complete it or actually do what it's supposed to do and discuss this term "heritage railways" in Northern Ireland. Geogre 19:30, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed. It's either a list, which ought to be List of heritage railways in Northern Ireland, or it's an explanation of the term. An explanation of the term would be redundant, as the fundamental term is already explained sufficiently at Heritage railway (unless there is something unique about N. Irish heritage railways as opposed to heritage railways elsewhere in the Isles, aside from their location).
      But even if this were to be a list, 3-4 entries does not a separate list make -- it should be merged into List of heritage railways. (Incidentally, List of heritage railways is mostly links to other lists, which would really make it an Archive of heritage railways under the visible convention.)
      I was also not aware that the new standard was to include prose for each entry in a list article. - KeithTyler 00:15, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep does wikipedia contain the sum of all human knowledge, is the ratio of red to blue links a new policy of an articles usefulness - no to both Djegan 20:13, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • To answer the question of "ratio of red to blue links": if your only information in an article is is to invite you to go somewhere that does not exist, then how can it be a useful article? - KeithTyler 00:17, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia is not the sum of human knowledge yet - their are many other aticles that are not "finished" yet - it goes without saying that their is a topical and technological bias on wikipedia at the moment (this reflects the background of the people who contribute, no insult intended) - just that an artcle has many red lines this is not a test as to weither it is a "useful article" - otherwise show me the policy - give it time, think of what wikipedia will be in ten years! Djegan 10:20, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep': I see no valid reason for deleting this article and consider this listing frivolous. Filiocht 07:30, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I seem to have incurred the wrath of the Irish Wikipedian contingent. Seems a little unbalanced, but there's not much I can do about that, I guess. With such a pouring out of people to vote keep on this article, I can't help but be reminded of the pouring out of people on the vfd for Exopolitics. It clearly helps in VfD if you have lots of people in one area who feel a topic deserves an article, regardless of quality. I'd better recruit everyone in my town to Wikipedia so we can ensure the retention of stubs such as 320th Street, Federal Way, Washington, Seatac Discount Plaza, and The Starbucks on Dash Point Road. - KeithTyler 17:16, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

That's not a very good argument against keeping the article. Besides, ignoring my fellow Irish Wikipedians' votes, that's still five keep votes against three deletes. I do feel justified in contacting people who would be in some way concerned with the article - I mean, the whole point of VfD and the delay in deletion is to prevent articles being deleted without people having a chance to oppose. Technically speaking there would not be anything to stop you doing what you propose above, but it is often cited that one shouldn't "disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point". Besides, how big is 320th Street? I mean, there is an article about O'Connell Street in Dublin. zoney ♣ talk 19:36, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I have no strong opinion on this page, but I agree with Keith that that us Irish sometimes have an over-the-top defensive reaction to criticism of our brethern, whether justified or not. For instance the nation went nuts some years ago when some two-penny Brit journo referred us as a land of pixies and peasants. Our reaction is governed by our national inferiority complex: "You're only picking on us because we are a small country who used to be ruled by that other shower" -- Rye1967 23:13, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Please keep your complexes to yourself. I voted to keep this article because I feel it is perfectly valid; much more valid than many articles on minor characters in fantasy computer games, for instance. If anything, I feel I personally suffer from an superiority complex, anyway. Filiocht 08:42, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
I agree, either way wikipedia is not the place for nationalism - it is a place for sharing information and knowledge - keep wikipedia professional, keep comments professional, people sometimes get to casual in the terms they use and this only leads to a mire - an article should only be deleted if it is not of merit for an encylopedia, not for the sake of it, thousands of people worldwide contribute free time to wikipedia and this work should be respected in as far as possible keeping it within the principals of wikipedia - slurs do not change the fact of the matter, people who are not irish have made their opinion as well on both sides. Djegan 19:25, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, though ideally this would be "List of..." and the information for each railway placed in indidivual articles. --Ianb 23:26, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is notable, fixable, and verifiable. Someone should just edit to better links, because it seems otherwise useful.Gurdonark 12:19, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I (of course) don't agree that this listing was frivolous. Calling the listing "frivolous" is rather hyperbolic. It was a stub-sized list of wikilinks, all of which were broken, and was not being maintained. Now, of course, it is (or may be) being maintained, though I still would urge that the descriptive content be put into topic articles and the list article only contain list content, and probably be merged into List of heritage railways in that article's existing Northern Ireland section instead of being in its own list article. - KeithTyler 17:58, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep but would somebody PLEASE add a stub msg?--Cynical 21:38, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Cabalamat 22:07, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of heritage railways in Northern Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_heritage_railways_in_Northern_Ireland&oldid=1206181463"