Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regional Railway Museum (Chennai)


 * 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. (Non-admin closure). Till I Go Home 07:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Regional Railway Museum (Chennai)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable organization with limited coverage in reliable sources. avs5221(talk&#124;contrib) 09:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs)  19:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs)  20:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs)  20:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs)  20:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Several of the references are from national newspapers in India. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per East. I see Times of India and The Hindu. Both are national. Refs need cleaning up, but that's not a reason for deletion. StarM 01:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ETA cleaned up sourcing some. I'll try to get back to it before this closed, but while I think there are enough sourced in it to survive AfD, there are also more available if someone has time StarM 01:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as there are reference from national newspapers. Please close this AfD as soon as possible. Notability has been established. Anbu121  ( talk me ) 15:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Thanks to the WP:VOLUNTEERs for improving the article by the new user. The topic is notable as shown by several sources. -- D Big X ray  21:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, easily passes WP:GNG with the new reliable sources provided. - Mailer Diablo 11:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Definitley passes WP:GNG, but it could use some more sources. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 20:12, 8 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.