Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midland Rail Heritage Trust


 * 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 no consensus. Michig (talk) 06:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Midland Rail Heritage Trust

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. No in depth coverage in independent reliable sources as required by the WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - appears properly sourced with third party sources. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The only third party sources are stock lists, which are not significant in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article lacks the required depth, but so do most of those in the List of New Zealand railway museums and heritage lines. Maybe it is time the WikiProject Trains took a look. I have added their group to the articles talk page which should make it appear in their Afd alerts. I'll also do a search to see if anything useful can be added to bring the quality up. NealeFamily (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Article was created on August 15.  WP:BEFORE C2 states, "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article.", and this is not a high priority topic.  Google images show that the group has been getting attention, including one website in co.uk, and the comment in the article about getting four workers from a "Work and Income" job scheme sounds like something that the people in NZ know about and is likely to have sourcing, as per WP:NRVE.  Article needs to be watched for copyvio.  What is the business structure?  What is OCI Communications that is a partial copyright holder of the official website?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * . Unscintillating (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If that's being claimed as 'significant coverage' we may as well give up now. The only mention of the organisation is as the employer of an expert being quoted on the actual story. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment the http://www.societies.govt.nz/ and http://www.business.govt.nz/ references recently added to the article are primary sources.
 * Noted - I used them to establish the legal creation date and the legal relationship with the company - they don't prove notability. On the issue of the AfD: I am a bit perplexed over whether this entity should be in a stand alone article or not (notwithstanding the WP:BEFORE from Unscintillating) because by itsself the organisation does not appear to meet the threshhold. In the context of all New Zealand railway museums, if it were within an article about them then in combination it does. The problem then becomes the size of the article to cover the topic - splitting them up makes sence, but then not all the individual museums are notable. A dilemma. NealeFamily (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could create a List of railway museums in New Zealand based on merging the bulk of the articles in Template:NZR_Heritage, many of which make the current article look well-sourced?
 * List of New Zealand railway museums and heritage lines already exists and has links to the various articles. NealeFamily (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of something with more comprehensive coverage (i.e. a concatenation of the current articles); but yes, that's a much better title though. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems notable enough. Op47 (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2014 (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.