Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live Steam & Outdoor Railroading (magazine)


 * 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   keep. Black Kite (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Live Steam & Outdoor Railroading (magazine)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

(Failed PROD) - Doesn't appear to be a notable publication, and no evidence of notability supplied. Oranjblud (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Reasons: Article has been stable for a long time (years). WP:NOTPAPER. Notable publication within its genre (largest in the US, comparable to Model Engineer in the UK.) Janke | Talk 05:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Non of those are valid reasons - can you provide some evidence of notability other than stating "it is notable". As for Model Engineer - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - though I note that that magazine is far broader in coverage.Oranjblud (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Article " being stable" is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 05:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 05:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 05:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per above: The beauty of Wikipedia is that we do have niche and esoteric topics. That can complicate determining notability.  But, I'm noticing that you're putting up every Railfan magazine to AFD or trying to PROD them.  Sorry, but that smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Roodog2k (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could assume good faith. In Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions - "I don't like it" and "I like it" are given as not being good reasons to keep or delete an article. I'm not putting up "every railfan magazine" up for deletion - I've nominated ones which don't appear to be notable. Railway Gazette, Railway Age have not been nomimated. Your time might be better spent showing notability or improving the article, than casting aspersions on my motives. We don't have articles on niche and esoteric subjects that are not notable. Railfanning is not and exception.Oranjblud (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am assuming good faith. I removed some of your PRODs, and that has seemed to offend you.  All your AfDs appear to be "doesn't appear notable" with no further argument.  Leaving snippy message on my talk page isn't good faith, however. Roodog2k (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes - if you are going to remove PRODS I would like you could come up with more than "I think this obscure topic is notable" - that doesn't help the article, makes more work, and perpetuates any sentiment on wikiproject trains that train related cruft is a special case and does not need to conform to basic encyclopedic standards. Not good.Oranjblud (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you feel that Railfandom isn't a notable topic, but a lot of people think it is. I'm not allowed to remove a PROD if I disagree with it?  You're sort of proving my case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  THAT is not a valid reason for deletion.  For the record, I think railfans are a little off their rockers, but if it makes them happy, so be it. Roodog2k (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:DEPROD you are not required to explain a de-PROD. The only required action is to remove the template. Turning that over: the original PROD had a, which was a failure to observe the nomination process. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - WP:POINTy nomination. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Placing an AFD request on an unreferenced, and apparently non-notable article is not as far as I know and example of disruptive behaviour done to prove a point.Oranjblud (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In the space of just under one hour you did a drive-by PROD on 42 articles (without following the proper process). Nine of these later had the PROD contested, and in eight such cases you then raised an AFD - sometimes within minutes of the PROD being contested. I assume that you've got something against transport-related periodicals, since I don't see any other articles PRODded by you on 4 July 2012. It's this "they've all got to go" attitude which is POINTy. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You can assume all you want - the facts are these are all articles lacking any references excluding primary sources, with no indication of notability, and to be honest - in almost all cases (there are exceptions) - no chance of ever being notable, or being shown to be notable.
 * What is fascinating is that as a member of wikproject trains, and an admin - you let these non-notable crufty articles pile up with out doing a thing about it, but if anyone makes the slightest attempt to get rid of this trash - you ignore WP:AGF and claiming WP:POINT - Oranjblud (talk) 23:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I cannot comment on this particular magazine as I am not familiar with it, but I completely agree with Redrose64's comments on the unacceptable nature of the general process that is going on here. -- Alarics (talk) 07:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete for something that has existed this long, can't find any sources on gnews. . LibStar (talk) 07:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:GHITS - The Bushranger One ping only 22:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:GOOGLE: "Google News can help assess whether something is newsworthy." He wasn't talking about Google itself but specifically the Google News search engine, which can definitely be used to find reliable sources for a topic. Till 03:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the implication that a lack of gNews hits = lack of notability is concerning. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * hardly concerning, why do you think gnews is offered in the AfD template?? It is one of the best ways to find third party sources. WP:GHITS applies to when people think lots of google hits (not google news) means notability. As an admin you should know this. LibStar (talk) 08:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:GHITS which says "Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search." LibStar (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know that. I also know, however, that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NME's provision for significant "niche" publications. GNews and GBooks do produce some decent hits using the search string <"Live Steam" magazine>, at least enough to persuade me that this is worth keeping. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic seems to have adequate notability and our editing policy is to make something of this, not to delete it. Warden (talk) 10:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * this is a generic vote. In what way does it meet "adequate notability". The editing policy is irrelevant in terms of arguing for notability. You've used this over 100 times and sways no one. LibStar (talk) 08:21, 15 July 2012 (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.