Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mozart (train)


 * 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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger One ping only 23:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Mozart (train)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't find this entry to meet the notability requirements listed in Notability_(Railway_lines_and_stations). Entry cites one timetable and no other reliable sources. I&#39;m Tony Ahn (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: Of course it won't meet the requirements in Notability_(Railway_lines_and_stations). This is mostly because it is a not a railway line.  But also because it is not a railway station.  It does help somewhat if the reasons you nominate for deletion are valid.  There will be lots of stuff in French/German railway magazines from the appropriate period. At worst merge into Paris-Strasbourg Line. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The reasons I nominated it for deletion are valid (as I will demonstrate), and your sarcasm is inappropriate for an editorial discussion. You clearly did not read the guideline I posted. The subsection Notability_(Railway_lines_and_stations) covers rolling stock. This entry does not meet those criteria. Further, the subsection Notability_(Railway_lines_and_stations) states "When considering reliable sources, the audience must be considered per WP:CORPDEPTH. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." No evidence of ANY media has been provided, thus no evidence of notability. I&#39;m Tony Ahn (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. Tony. Thanks for your feedback.  Just to clarify.  Not only is this train it not a station, nor a railway line, it's not rolling stock either.  That's because it's a train, like Flying Scotsman (train), or Royal Scot (train), or Speed Merchant (train), or Fleche d'Or... Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All of those examples you give, save one, have history books as references (reliable sources). This entry in question has two self-published websites and one timetable. That doesn't meet WP:RS. WP:GNG states the subject must be the recipient of significant media coverage. I don't see that here. I&#39;m Tony Ahn (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. Tony. There will be plenty of media coverage in French railway magazines, trust me, there is quite an industry for this sort of thing. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that such media exists, as per WP:ONUS. I&#39;m Tony Ahn (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would also question the independent nature of a "railway magazine". What are these magazines, and who publishes them? &mdash;gorgan_almighty (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * They're usually published by independent journalists. see e.g. Rail (magazine), Railway Magazine for a couple of British examples. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. This train does not appear to be the subject of any reliable independent secondary sources, as required by the main notability guideline WP:GNG. A Google search turns up nothing but this article, YouTube videos, and a load of "TripAdvisor" type websites. These websites are all-inclusive by nature and are not independent of the subject, so are therefore unsuitable for asserting notability. Incidentally, Notability (Railway lines and stations) is an essay not a notability guideline, so it carries no weight in this discussion and it appears to be at odds with the main notability guideline WP:GNG. &mdash;gorgan_almighty (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The debate on this nomination has so far focused on two issues. The first is whether the article meets the criteria discussed in Notability_(Railway_lines_and_stations).  As that article makes no mention of articles about trains, the criteria discussed in that article simply don't apply.  On the question as to what trains should generally be presumed to be notable, I would have thought that a train that has been given a name (such as the subject of this article) would normally qualify, and a train that has not been given a name would normally not qualify.  On the question of sources, the following comments from Notability are appropriate: "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate."  The EC Mozart was a named train that ran from the capital city of France to the capital city of Austria, via Germany.  I have just added a "further reading" section to the article that cites three books, published in France, Germany and Austria, respectively.  They all cover the topic EuroCity, and therefore can all be expected to mention the EC Mozart.  The French book was written by Europe's foremost expert on post-WWII European international trains.  As has already been pointed out above, the EC Mozart would also have been mentioned in independent printed magazines published in (at least) those three countries from time to time (eg La Vie du Rail (published by the publisher of the French book I have added) and Eisenbahn Kurier (similarly published by a prolific publisher of books about railways)). There would been similar coverage in Today's Railways Europe (an English language magazine edited in France and published in the UK).  It is therefore clear that the article should be kept. Bahnfrend (talk) 02:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - per comments from Bahnfrend - and also GNG and railway notability played against each other can make things confusing. EC Mozart is a notable named train - that should be sufficient. sats 03:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - As per Bahnfrend, pretty much. The coverage may well be offline, but it will certainly exist, and in non-railway sources as well. As for I'm Tony Am's comments, the information has to be verifiable, not verified. A route covering these major cities (let alone the fact it's not a national route, but one that goes through several countries) will blatantly be able to be verifiable. One thing I did find was:  Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 06:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The article isn't about the route, it is about the train itself. At best, this entry should be merged with an entry for the route or for the company that operates the train. I see nothing notable about the train itself. I&#39;m Tony Ahn (talk) 07:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Try again, it's about both the train and the route that it travels - it's the only train that did that route at the time, so... Not only that, but the source I found discussed the route and the train. If you read the article, it's clearly about both the route and the train. As it should be, as they're basically one and the same. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. A train is a physical object. A route is not. They are not the same thing. The entry is Mozart (train). Adding a second train to that route would be possible, and that fact further demonstrates that a route and a train are not the same. I&#39;m Tony Ahn (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * WTF? This route was only ever served by one train. Adding a second train to the route would do jack shit in this case as the route is no longer active. A route is not the same thing as a train, but when one route is only ever covered by one train, and this one train only ever covers this one route, they ARE essentially the same thing. Ironically, you've doubled back on your own nomination statement, which said it was a non-notable route (wrong), and are now trying to claim it's a non-notable train (wrong). Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 13:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm saying that once cannot say a train service and a route are the same thing, because multiple train services can ply the same route. You're saying A = B, and I'm saying A cannot equal B, because if another service was on the route, than C = B as well, which by syllogism means A = C, which is not true. Further, I never said it was a non-notable route. In fact I never used the word "route" in the nomination. That was your inference (wrong). I&#39;m Tony Ahn (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A named train is a service on a specific route, not the specific rolling stock that operates it or any other physical object, for example there were simultaneous 10am Flying Scotsman (train) departures from both Edinburgh and London for many years of it's 150-year history (during which time it has obviously been operated by many types of physical train). At its peak the Atlantic Coast Express consisted of "up to five trains departing from Waterloo in the 40 minutes before 11.00a.m.". Thryduulf (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Clarifications - pretty much all EuroCity trains are daily train pairs, ie each day there is a train bearing that name travelling from A to B and a train bearing the same name travelling from B to A. But there are exceptions, eg there are four Berlin-Warszawa-Express trains each way each day.  Also, the EC Mozart was not the only train pair between Paris and Vienna as, eg, the Orient Express also travelled that route. Bahnfrend (talk) 05:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - major international train service of historic notability. Lack of google sources is not a strong argument - it is unlikely to be widely covered online because the Internet suffers from WP:RECENTISM. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I challenge anyone to find "significant media coverage" of this train (not the route) anywhere, online or off. A timetable is not media coverage. I&#39;m Tony Ahn (talk) 07:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep' - User:Bahnfrend has referenced a few books and journals that cover the train. It is a unique, prestigious train service with 50+ years' history. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient references have been uncovered to establish notability for this train and/or route. I don't mind which of those we have an article on, but there is proper encyclopedic content to be written - especially about the 4-power period. Mcewan (talk) 12:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - article relies on three short paragraphs on a fan website, several timetables and a mention in a book about Mozart the composer. These aren't significant coverage in reliable sources, therefore the subject fails WP:GNG. We have no idea whether the 'Further reading' contains anything of significance - I would think that if it did, the author would have already referenced it in the article. Sionk (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So basically, you've based your vote by ignoring 3 of the potentially available links? It's quite plausible that the article is mostly based off these books, with in-line refs to other things added (that's far from unheard of, after all.) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 13:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm basically basing my decision on the lack of evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Rather than jumping on the bandwagon, as some people seem to be doing here. The article is largely unsourced, while the bit that is isn't well sourced at all. Sionk (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sionk, I would suggest that you read the extract I have quoted above from Notability, because what you are saying is not consistent with it. Bahnfrend (talk) 05:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep – At this point it seems that the consensus is that there is enough reason to keep it, and is just waging a personal battle. Useddenim (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hang on a second. I don't know the article creator, so there's nothing personal about it. I'm just responding to the various opinions that others post, so that newcomers to this AfD have both sides to weigh in order to make a decision. I have not gotten "personal" (ad hominem) with anyone here. This started when the article was proposed at WP:DYK/N, and the first thing I did when reviewing is ask for a second opinion. Both of the editors that responded said it failed WP:RS, so I nominated it for AfD. I&#39;m Tony Ahn (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * {ec}}Keep, there are plenty of references to the train and its notability. The nominator's most recent objections seem to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what a named passenger train is (it's a service, not a physical object). Thryduulf (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is sufficiently verifiable, and even verified. And a named passenger train is a service; any special equipment on it is secondary. Nom seems no to have known that at the time of nomination, and didn't sufficiently look at that before nominating. A good faith error. oknazevad (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * KEEP. I am surprised at the level of rancor that a train can spawn.  I don't read all the rules about these things, rather ask myself, "Self, when someone goes looking for information about this train, and given that there is such a paucity of information available about it, is that not a reason to keep the article?"  I found that I answered, "Yes, it is."  Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, no Strong Keep. It is a notable and important named train.  Named trains are rare and special things, especially those that catch the public imagination.  The article as it stands establishes notability.  If there is a problem with the project criteria, Perhaps they could be expanded.  But as a WP article I find no fault with it.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Named train with sufficient coverage. Even if the "guidline" the nom reference was valid, I think their confusing "line" with "train".  A railway line is an actual physical track laid and/or operated by a specific company.  A train is a locomotive with railcars that operate on the line.  To say a train doesn't pass Notability_(Railway_lines_and_stations) is like saying "Delete Justin Beiber because he doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO." --Oakshade (talk) 06:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Can we delete him in RL? --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 10:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, but the article is relatively poorly sourced. I vote "keep" because Wikipedia's deletion guidelines only require that there be compelling evidence that a subject is notable, not that such evidence must be included in the article at present, as Bahnfrend noted above.  It's a named train that ran for more than half a century, with the same name and approximately the same route, serving several major cities in three countries. Tags urging the addition of better sources and more inline citations are definitely called for, but not deletion.  Regarding the sourcing:  Most of the content that is cited (with inline citations) comes from two websites, both of which are questionable sources.  One, www.grahnert.de, identifies itself (in German) as "the Internet pages of Marcus Grahnert".  Under WP:RS, very rarely are personal websites suitable sources for WP content (thousands of WP articles use such sources, but that doesn't make it acceptable).  Mr. Grahnert may be well informed, and the content on his site may be very accurate, but there's no way for Wikipedia readers to know whether it is or not.  The other source, www.trains-en-voyage.com, is also worrisome, because whoever is behind it does not identify themselves.  Unlike Mr. Grahnert's site, this site appears to be for a group, but nowhere on the site can I find any information as to the name of a group, or person, it represents – not even on its "contact" page (which refers to the "webmaster" without giving any name); it has no "about [this website]" page, not in any language.  Look, I'm a railfan myself, but websites of individuals or of unnamed groups that (apparently) have no paid staff or elected officers are not acceptable sources for WP content, because they have no accountability.  Websites of formal organizations, even railfan ones, at least have some degree of accountability for accuracy of content that they put on the web, so I consider those to be OK. If Mr. Grahnert were a widely recognized authority on the subject area, or had authored several books, e.g., then I would hold a different view of whether his website is a suitable source for Wikipedia, but I find no evidence of that. SJ Morg (talk) 07:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - that's what I was trying to say, but better said. Well done.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 10:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright, someone close this so the DYK nom can go ahead. I&#39;m Tony Ahn (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * comment - did someone want popular culture? although 'popular' might be a matter of interpretation in this case (Not safe)--10:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 15:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Per User:Wilbysuffolk. — →Davey 2010→ Talk to me!→  17:23, 15 April 2013 (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.