Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newsrail (2nd nomination)


 * 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 - a keep result doesn't bias one way or the other a future editorial discussion of merging, of course. Wily D 11:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Newsrail
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

No evidence of notability given excluding self-references. Simple verification of one aspect of magazine notability would do. Previous failed deletion proposal appears based on assertation that "it is notable" with no evidence given. Oranjblud (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 17:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 17:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 17:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Article doesn't assert notability and the sources are unreliable. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep indexed and held by National Library of Australia, first published in 1973, note that its had 3 name changes Gnangarra 06:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * comment its cited in 240 articles on Wikipedia that alone is sufficient reason to have a stub article Gnangarra 06:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per issues raised by Gnangarra SatuSuro 12:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge with Australian Railway Historical Society. I merged Australian Railway History after it was PRODded (I removed the PROD).  It would seem that keeping all the magazines published by the Australian Railway Historical Society would serve the articles and content better. Roodog2k (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge - for three reasons: 1) Reliable sources are not necessarily notable themselves. Some examples would be individual scientific papers, user manuals, press releases or government reports - some of them might indeed be notable, but in general they will not be. 2) There are currently no reliable sources cited in the article (one is a journal directory, the other is the journal's own website), so it doesn't even pass GNG. WP:NBOOK states that being archived by the NLA is a necessary but insufficient criterion. 3) This article has no reasonable prospect of expanding very much beyond its present two-sentence stub status, and thus would be far more appropriate to merge its content to Australian Railway Historical Society. The notability of ARHS is not in question, so independent RSs are not required for inclusion there.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Gnangarra; appears to meet the bar for independent notability, although article needs improvement to reflect this. Orderinchaos 03:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is established by this periodical being used as a source by academics. Verifiability is not a problem either, as the details about this periodical can be found in many a bibliography, such as the Australian National Bibliography and its successor Recent Australian Publications, both of which are published by the National Library of Australia. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:11, 11 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.