Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China railway signalling

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. This article's fate is in the hands of others to clean it up. As raised in the discussion this isn't a place for cleanup - but if others feel it is necessary, they can re-draftify this (non-admin closure)   Kadzi   (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

China railway signalling

[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)

Insufficent information about safeworking and signalling in China. No annotation of different types of signals, no section diagrams, no annotation of absolute or permissive signals, nor shunting signals. The comment "There are four observer countries" suggest the topic is really something else. Whiteguru (talk) 05:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Whiteguru: Railway signalling in China, especially modern electric types are, based on OSShD standards.

Chinese railway signalling is increasing in importance as this system is used in various countries such as Ethiopia, Nigeria, etc.

There is a category called Category:Railway signalling by country which has 25 entries, but the entry for China, and OSShD for that matter, is/was missing.

There are files on the internet which are difficult to find.

The prime aim of the topic China railway signalling is to link wiki to these internet files, and tie in the ORRShD standard on which these are based.

With this link, there is no immediate need to reproduce the internet file in Wiki.

The wiki article is necessarily short, for the time being. It can be added to.

One change that I would like to see change in the internet file, is to be able to print it in Black & White, which is cheaper on a Black & White only printer than a color printer. Such as the HL2132. This is easier said than done.

I found the article about Chinese signal aspects by searching for Russian signals. :-( :-( I thus learned about the OSShD organisation.

I haven't checked to see if there is a wiki on Railway signalling in Russia.

If more info can be found, then the article proposed for deletion is a good place to start. :-) :-)

I think that these reasons are good enough to OPPOSE deletion of Railway signalling in China. MountVic127 (talk) 07:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep This article isn't very good in its current state, but this is a problem that normal wiki operations can solve; no notability concerns have been raised, and it is highly unlikley that there are no sources discussing Chinese railway signalling. Therefore, per wp:before, deletion should not take place. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 15:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep As Alex Noble said, there is potential, and AfD is not cleanup. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep improve the article, it could be quite useful --Devokewater @ 23:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Rollback to Draft while more material is assembled is a workable solution.Whiteguru (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
procedural keep as the article has moved from main space to draft, also no policies were quoted for deletion. There are a lot of concerns that need to be addressed with the article but there does sound like a topic here although I wonder if the scope of the title is to narrow. Govvy (talk) 10:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have moved the page back to mainspace while this AfD is open. In this case, per WP:AFDEQ, AfC is not cleanup just like AfD is not cleanup. The comments suggest that the topic itself should be preserved, but AfC won't do that if AfD decides it wasn't notable for mainspace. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:34, 26 July 2020 (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.