Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northeast Operating Rules Advisory Committee


 * 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. Closing, no consensus. No discussion in two weeks and no special reason to relist for a third time. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter (talk) 10:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Northeast Operating Rules Advisory Committee

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Not notable, no coverage Ironmatic1 (talk) 03:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ironmatic1 (talk) 03:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * There are three Wikipedia articles explicitly on railroad operating rules, two of which are nominated for deletion, and more articles on "railway signalling" which might be the broader topic.
 * Northeast Operating Rules Advisory Committee, at AFD at Articles for deletion/Northeast Operating Rules Advisory Committee
 * General Code of Operating Rules, at AFD at Articles for deletion/General Code of Operating Rules
 * Canadian Rail Operating Rules, not at AFD currently
 * And all of these, plus many more articles, are within broad category Category:Railway signalling, which includes an article for signalling (and operating rules) in each of many countries.
 * Note that the main article Railway signalling includes a section on Operating Rules.
 * Please consider commenting at other AFD(s) and closer should consider all AFDs together. --Doncram (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This deletion request fails on at least two levels: (a) First, a standard that is applied by a major subset of an industry is per se relevant. This is e.g. also true for all ISO standards, and also all major laws. It is not necessary by WP standards that the amount of secondary literature about a subject is used as a indicator of the relevance - adoption of something in the real world by itself can make it relevant. (b) But additionally, there are thousands of documents citing and using the NORAC; first of all of course derived rulebooks, but then many FRA documents e.g. about accidents or incidents, and also secondary literature about e.g. adherence to standards. Probably quite a few of these can be found online (FRA documents), but also scientific literature. Of course, one can doubt the quality of an article that does not try to explain why its subjects matters - but this is no reason for deletion, only for improvement. Further, encyclopedic information about NORAC is relevant to many users of Wikipedia interested in information about railways, as indicated by this article's longevity, created in 2007 and edited and improved by many Wikipedians. Truthanado (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As above. --User:Haraldmmueller 19:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect to a suitable target. (Noting that I was made aware of this AfD at my talk page ) The above arguments against deletion do not make any reference to Wikipedia policy, merely saying "we can't delete it because people use NORAC in the real world!" I own a copy of NORAC myself, that doesn't mean it's notable. Ideally I'd like to see an article on Railroad safety in the United States or Railroad operations in the United States, where something like this topic could be briefly mentioned. An article's longevity means nothing about its notability. I once got a 10 year old hoax article deleted. That it was present for 10 years did not make it any less of a hoax. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * See reply at Articles_for_deletion/General_Code_of_Operating_Rules - do we have to copy-and-paste all arguments over both discussions?? --User:Haraldmmueller 09:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would have bundled these articles together in one AfD for this reason... Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Arbitrarily0   ( talk ) 12:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, although should be renamed to be more clearly about the rules, which were needed and are significant, not about the committee. If it were really about the committee, it would name the members, etc.  Operating rules seem important, and there is history involved.  It would also be acceptable to merge this into a combined article about railroad operating rules and/or a list-article describing the major ones such as this one.  Or specifically it could potentially be merged into Railway signalling.  Personally, I think a list-article could be better in providing context, showing variety of the operating rules adopted.  In the absence of an editor actively developing a merged list-article, at the Railway signalling article or separately, keeping seems best for now. --Doncram (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep GBooks alone has enough hits on the first page from gov't sources and others to show notability. The article badly needs a rewrite though. Even a few mentions in GScholar. Oaktree b (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.