Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crew change Guide


 * 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. Inadequate reliable sources to make an article Mr.  Z- man  23:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Crew change Guide

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

There is no claim to notability. Murderbike (talk) 03:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * delete no sources, totally unverifyalbe, and just plain odd. A series of dubious statements held together by typos. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:V and does not appear to be notable whatsoever. Red Phoenix  (Talk) 18:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * comment - I reverted some uncorrected vandalism and got the article back to a better condition. Please review again? I'd personally like to see this article stay, especially as it seems to document a type of book or zine that is a useful tool for a small underground movement. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, "I like it" is not a reason for keeping, the information must be notable and verifiable. This subject is neither. Murderbike (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * comment - you didn't notice that I didn't vote or give a reason for keeping. In any case, the amount of egregious vandalism in this article's history - I guess in an attempt to keep its topic "secret" - makes me feel that this article is too much trouble to keep. So I'm keeping out of it. Though I'd personally like to see a good proper article on it, if it were possible. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * comment - also, a quick Google search shows that this is at least notable to the freight-hopping community, although no sources were found that could pass WP:RS. No mentions were found in Google Books. Thank me for finding proof for you? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, No, because we don't need to find proof that it's not notable or verifiable, we need proof that it IS notable and verifiable. Murderbike (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - easily passes WP:V per Ghits: .. Not sure how notable the term may be. Rescue? Move? Merge? Bearian (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Added a ref from a RS. Suggest moving to Crew change guides, as the phenomena of guides is more notable than a particular guide.  The absence of many published (print) resources about the guides is not surprising given the community that the guides serve. Pastordavid (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge a 1-sentence mention of this to Freighthopping. It's real but hardly rates an article of it's own; as a self-published underground book it fails notability criteria for books. KleenupKrew (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Also, Bearian's link shows 50 results, mostly primary sources and mirrors. PhilKnight (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2008 (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.