Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delaware Valley Rails: The Railroads and Rail Transit Lines of the Philadelphia Area


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Delaware Valley Rails: The Railroads and Rail Transit Lines of the Philadelphia Area

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails all five criteria at WP:NB. Subject is an out-of-print book about rail transport in the Philadelphia area, published in 1979. According to Amazon.com, it is the author's only publication and the author, himself, does not appear to have any notability. – Dream out loud (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Transwiki: - In spite of all that's wrong with it as an article, I don't see why it can't be used as a Wikisource. DanTD (talk) 02:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It can't because it's not free content. The book was published in 1979 so its copyrighted material. Besides, that wouldn't be a transwiki.  I don't understand what you mean by using the article "as a Wikisource".  Wikisource is an online library, not a collection of information about books. – Dream out loud  (talk) 07:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, you have a point regarding the copyright. But the book seems like it has info about the railroads that can still be useful for a lot of articles. I'm not looking for information about the book as much as I'm looking for the book to be used as info about the railroads. DanTD (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The book is notable as it remains the definitive source on the topic of railroads in the Delaware Valley region. I believe this is stated in the article. There have been no publications of this level of detail since then. There is really nothing else on the market quite like. The author is alive and well and can answer any questions wiki might have. The author is a noted transporation expert in the U.S.Oanabay04 (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the book has tons of useful information, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. I've nominated the article for deletion; I'm not saying it shouldn't be used as a source for other articles.  If the book is as notable as Oanabay says, than we need a source to prove it.  I haven't found any.  The fact that the author is alive is also irrelevant here.  There's no reason to contact him for anything because this discussion has nothing to do with him.  The book fails all the crtieria listed at WP:NB.  If the book is notable, then it has to satisfy at least one of the criteria with proof (saying it's "definitive source on the topic of railroads..." doesn't count).   So far there have been no valid reasons stated to keep this article.  Using statements like "There is really nothing else on the market quite like"  [sic] as an argument is like saying "I like it" or "It has valuble information".  See WP:ATA. – Dream out loud  (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Whether the book itself is useful or can serve as a reliable source on a relevant topic is immaterial to a discussion on its notability. I see no significant coverage to satisfy WP:BK or any other relevant guideline. -- Kinu  t/c 01:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Appears to fail WP:NBOOKS. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete no sources to back of claims of notability. Of course, the work may very well be an excellent source itself on its topic, but that is a completely different issue. Arsenikk (talk)  22:47, 13 June 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.