Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De Witt Yard

De Witt Yard

De Witt Yard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I propose redirecting to CSX Transportation because it fails WP:NGEO Bryce M (talk) 11:27, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, United States of America, and New York. Bryce M (talk) 11:27, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• Mohawk Subdivision is a better target; content could actually be usefully merged there. Mackensen (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge to Mohawk Subdivision per Mackensen. While I agree the topic probably is not notable enough to have its own article, the company is almost never a good place to redirect the page (since major companies' articles never mention minor facilities, it leaves the page open to deletion at RfD in the future). A more specific redirect target is better. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  Would not be opposed to a keep, either, per TAOT below. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep The article creator used an unusual form of the name, the yard is commonly known by the name DeWitt Yard. Almost all the sources currently in the article use that name. When I search by that name, I get copious results. This was a major rail yard (two humps) with plenty of coverage. Several sources call it one of the largest in the country at its peak.
• two pages in Railway Signaling and Communications concerning the yard
• two full pages just to display a map of the yard, plus two pages of text concerning its operation in Yard and Terminals and Their Operation
• coverage of a strike at the yard being broken up by the Pinkertons
• three paragraphs dealing with the design and operation of the yard when it was expanded, plus diagrams of the retarders that were installed
• I don't have a direct link, but this briefly describes two pages of coverage in Railway and Engineering Review
• two pages in North American Railyards
• a page worth of statistics and details of operations from the American Railway Engineering Association Bulletin
• multiple pages of Congressional testimony which go into great detail about how the yard operates
• not independent coverage because it's by the New York Central Railroad, but most of a page dedicated to diesel facilities at the yard

I could certainly find more coverage if I kept looking, but this is enough for me to support keeping the article when combined with the recent coverage that is already in the article. Its title should be moved to DeWitt Yard, however. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 18:31, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to Mohawk Subdivision (Does not pass WP:NGEO): Per Epicgenius' expounded assessment of Mackensen's (who should have likely added "Merge" for clarity) suggested target. CSX Transportation nor DeWitt, New York are optimal targets although both should have some mention. AFD is not cleanup but Wikipedia improvements are sometimes indicated by combining unimprovable stubs or dictionary entries to create better articles. Articles should be split when the parent article size or depth dictates, not the drive to continue creating stubs or article with bare notability, as if Wikipedia just started out. Sometimes reasons dictate we just don't need a standalone article. As for as the hump yard comments, it was shut down a fairly long time ago. -- Otr500 (talk) 06:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  Selkirk Yard is an entirely different yard, and notability doesn't go away just because something is closed. Is Cedar Hill Yard not notable because the humps were closed? Also, while again it's a different yard entirely, ending hump operation is not the same as closing a yard, and plenty of switching continues at Selkirk. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Just FYI, I've changed my !vote to "keep or merge". TAOT actually does make a pretty good argument that DeWitt Yard is notable (I forgot about the typographical variant). – Epicgenius (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Topic meets WP:NGEO as demonstrated by Trainsandotherthings. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 05:17, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

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.