Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Light train

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. asilvering (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Light train

[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)

Appears to be an original WP:NEOlogism. None of the cited sources use the term "light train" as defined in the article, and there do not appear to be other sources that describe the term as such. It appears to combine two separate concepts: lightweight trains from the mid-20th century, and a unrelated variety of trains in operation in Europe which are not permitted for regular operation in the United States. Sub31k (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's probably room for an article about the mid-20th-century lightweight trains as a split from streamliner, but this seems to be original research connecting that with modern rolling stock. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Talk:Light train#Neologism didn't clear matters up at all. The term may be used in Dutch (Dutch: Lichtgewichttrein), but I'm unaware of a corresponding concept in English or German. Compare the articles in the different-language Wikipedias for BLS RABe 525. The French article fr:Système ferroviaire léger isn't about the same concept at all, but rather about light rail networks in general. That's the result of this edit on Wikidata from 2024. Not our problem, but worth considering if there's a better match. Mackensen (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the French article fr:Système ferroviaire léger does not even mention the French translation for "light rail" once.
KatVanHuis (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I previously ran into this in New Page Patrol and was unsure as to how to handle it. From reading the talk page discussion, it seems this is indeed a neologism and should be deleted absent clear evidence there is such a term. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Trainsandotherthings, since your vote here, I've added more sources to the article. What kind of evidence would be sufficient in your opinion? KatVanHuis (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have failed to persuade me that this is a real term. I stand by my previous comments. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the term "light train" has been replaced by the term "light-weight train" which appears in sources. This 1001 pages German report alone lists a few dozens of publications on "light-weight train" design, in English as well as in other languages, showing it's a subject found in many sources. KatVanHuis (talk) 10:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. That being said, I think part of this article's content might be worth including in other articles, perhaps Multiple unit, but adopting lighter materials is a universal concept everywhere. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 18:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello XtraJovial, even if adopting lighter materials may be a universal concept now, the popularity was limited prior to the 1990s, indeed except for the 1930s when it was shortly trending. Not all "light-weight trains" are multiple units and not all multiple units are light-weight, like this one. A "multiple" unit is a type of consist; a "light-weight train" is a an engineering practise. KatVanHuis (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and the others. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Some aspects of the article may be worth integrating into existing pages, where they can be properly contextualized. Further, the creator seems to have a pattern of creating articles designed to push relatively unknown transit terms into broader usage - see Talk:Semi-metro for another example that has been frequently disputed. Akpqegoj (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Most if not all of the examples listed already fit the definition (and link to) Semi-metro or Hybrid rail Ottawatransitguy (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the thoughtful conversation at Talk:Light train#Neologism. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 12:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the nomination and others. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question: does the existence of Template:Lightweight Trains help to show that the grouping of "light-weight trains" is notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatVanHuis (talk • contribs) 20:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Thryduulf, a few days ago you wrote: This needs more investigation, as while I'm not sure the terminology is correct it appears the concept is notable. I was wondering: have you had the time to do some more investigation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatVanHuis (talk • contribs) 07:53, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:07, 8 April 2025 (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.