Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Usage of the terms railroad and railway

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 delete. Sandstein 18:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of the terms railroad and railway

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

not notable or verifiable, full of OR.

Notability: not every pair of related words in English deserves their own article on Wikipedia.
Verifiability: what references discuss these two words? Is that why there are no references other than a Gordon Lightfoot song?
WP:OR This is original research from beginning to end.

A worse than useless compendium of original research, guesswork, and misinformation. Hurts more than it helps. The one footnote is about which term singer Gordon Lightfoot uses in a song. The article was tagged OR in 2009 but there has been no discussion and no attempt to resolve it since. The only thing possibly worth keeping in this article is the first paragraph (unsourced) dealing with definition and etymology, however Wiktionary already has articles for wikt:railroad and wikt:railway. Mathglot (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Cecropia, ~~Duncharris~~ (retired), JackLumber, Alanmak. Mathglot (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete not on an encyclopaedic topic, or at least not on a new one when we have rail transport. The different things that railways have been called down the years is not a topic; many things have different names though their history, or geographical variations, but this merits only a brief mention in the article if that. Per WP:COMMONALITY we try and use names that mean the same thing in different English speaking territories, so 'rail transport', and try not to emphasise minor naming variations. Certainly not an topic in its own right.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge It seems quite easy to find detailed discussion of the topic in sources such as this. The worst case would be merger into a more general account of rail terminology such as glossary of rail transport terms. Andrew D. (talk) 07:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a hodgepodge of (unreferenced) personal observations, claims and statements of the obvious which serves no useful purpose. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. Bearian (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original essay. Carrite (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OR and per WP:NOTESSAY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:35, 3 October 2015 (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.