Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bunbury Street Railcam Project


 * 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   redirect to Railpage Australia, where the information already exists. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Bunbury Street Railcam Project

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I can't find any independent reliable sources for this Railcam Project. Fails basic notability guidelines WP:Note JimmyGiggle (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

What is an independent source? I have seen the cameras myself and I can view the output. What else would be required? Isn't the proof available on the photostream which is listed in the article? I can also find the camera output live and on youtube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozrailfans (talk • contribs) 12:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed nomination header. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:N, our basic notability guideline, requires multiple secondary sources that cover the subject in-depth (i.e. not just a passing mention) and are independent of the subject (not written by or for the subject or someone closely associated with it). An example would be an article about it in a magazine or newspaper. See Independent for more detail. Thryduulf (talk) 09:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't find anything from a 3rd party to point to the notability of the project. It is associated with the Railpage Australia website and Melbourne Wireless, but that isn't enough to meet WP:N. Possibly merge to either of these wiki entries? Wongm (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC) 
 * Keep - it exist. good enough for me. for now. re-nominate in the future if still status quo.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not an really an argument -- WP:ITEXISTS. Notability is concerned with broad coverage in reliable secondary sources. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 18:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)




 * Delete -- it sounds cool, but unfortunately it can't have its own page due to lack of notability; there's no significant coverage from independent and reliable sources. A merge to a page like Railpage Australia seems reasonable though.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That could be a good choice.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2011 (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.