Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beloit and Madison Railroad

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 speedy keep‎. SK1, both draftifys withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beloit and Madison Railroad

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

~~Requesting to draftify this article after unilateral draftification was objected to by the original author.~~

On January 17, a one-sentence AfC draft was submitted and rejected.[1] The author made no changes to the draft and on April 12 made the exact same one-sentence article directly into the mainspace,[2] which was proposed for CSD under A7 as it makes no claim of importance[3] and kept.[4] After the article was not improved, it was moved to draftspace clobbering the still-existing rejected AfC draft[5] and then moved back to mainspace by the original author.[6] Because the draft was moved back to mainspace, it is no longer eligible for unilateral draftification so I must propose it here at AfD. Dan • ✉ 18:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Transportation. Dan • ✉ 18:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was the recent draftifyer, ~~Recommend re draftify to allow time for research of offline sources.~~ Semi the article if needed if the IP is going to edit war over the AfD template. Star Mississippi 20:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosing that I have semi'ed the article to stop the AfD removal. Unfortunately one is the creator logged in so we may need to EC it if they don't heed the warnings. I don't think this is Involved as it won't keep any established editors from improving the article, but if someone feels it is, feel free to undo the protection. Star Mississippi 23:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the rewrite. Wasn't sure sourcing would be accessible during this window. Glad to be wrong. Star Mississippi 14:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have access to offline sources (like Lorenzsonn, which I've just listed as further reading) sufficient to expand the article. I agree that the current article is completely inadequate. Mackensen (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Leonard @Star Mississippi please excuse the pings; I've rewritten from offline sources. There's more to be done (such as subsequent history of the physical line), but it's a substantially different article now. Mackensen (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mackensen's rewrite. Really well-done. Dan • ✉ 16:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mackensen's excellent work. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the recent improvements to the article. Improvements which established this railroad's notability. TH1980 (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2024 (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.