Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newsrail


 * 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. ( X! ·  talk )  · @957  · 21:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Newsrail

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

A non-notable magazine with the sources provided to date only demonstrating its existence, not its notability. The article and the sources provided do not demonstrate the magazine's significance to anyone other than the members of the Australian Railway Historical Society (Victorian Division).

This is a contested PROD, reasons for contesting are provided on the article talk page. While I concede the article may be of some use, being "useful" is not a valid argument for keeping this article. Being the 37th most cited publication on Wikipedia's merely reflects the extremely large contribution made to this encyclopedia by railfans rather than being an intrinsic measure of a publications notability, i.e. it is selection bias. Mattinbgn\talk 23:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Objection withdrawn. Clifflandis (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd argue keep. This magazine should be measure for what it's scope is: Australian train-related stuff. Verifiability is met, and I consider "serious" magazines to be inherently notable. The article can be massively improved though, and Wikipedia will not have improved if we delete this article. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Topical journal that's been running for decades, one of the central publications in its area. Clearly notable. Rebecca (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per sound comments above by users Headbomb and Rebecca.--Pink Bull (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable, it will never be significantly larger than it is now, so it isn't even really useful. Jonathan Hall (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2009 (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.