Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rochester Institute of Technology Model Railroad Club


 * 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 delete. Secret account 22:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Rochester Institute of Technology Model Railroad Club

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable collegiate club. My speedy delete tag was removed, so here we are. Corvus cornix talk  00:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Add Rochester & Irondequoit Terminal Railroad to this AfD. Corvus cornix talk  00:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as unsourced, non-notable WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep. Independent reliable sources: Democrat and Chronicle, 10 December 2007; October 2006 issue of Railroad Model Craftsman.  That's two, which is the usual criterion.  Powers T 00:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The first is just a passing mention, and what can you gather from that article which can be used to write an article from? I have no idea what the second one says.   Corvus cornix  talk  00:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Much of the article can be written from primary sources; the independent sources are mainly to establish notability. While I admit they're borderline, I tend to err on the side of inclusion.  Obviously, you might disagree.  Powers T 01:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Another article which discusses the founding and stated purpose of the club: . Powers T 03:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A little more information, true.  Corvus cornix  talk  00:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Another article which, in part, discusses the club: Powers T 13:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not much there.  Corvus cornix  talk  00:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable, per Cirt.  jj137  ♠  Talk 01:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Rochester Institute of Technology. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 01:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - The reference article is not about the club, but about a single event sponsored by the club. WP:N, I am pretty sure, states that single events like this do not establish notability, even if they are covered in a legitimate secondary source. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate it if you could find that statement, rather than assume it exists. What I found at WP:N is that sources need not cover the topic exclusively; while the article's genesis is in covering the event, it does discuss the club, including noting its co-founder and date of founding.  Powers T 03:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I misquoted policy, as that applies to the notability of people. On the other hand, notability is also governed by: Significant coverage" sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive  While this single article does not involve original research, I think it does not address the club in detail. My belief is without more objective evidence to establish notability, notability has not been established.  As per Boblenon's comment below, the shows seem to have a greater case for notability than the club, since the shows are the subject of the article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But yet the coverage is "more than trivial", surely? The main focus may be the show, as it was at the time a current event, but it does discuss the founding.  Another article I linked above discusses the club's stated purpose.  I can understand if you don't think that's sufficient, but I think it's arguable.  Powers T 13:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - I am the author of this article and am currently the Advisor for the club . I can attest to the information I put into the article, however, it not easily referenced from a multitude of sources - other than the people who where there. I realize there is also an article specific to our Model RR presenting it as a real railroad - this has been around for some time, and could be integrated with the article I wrote today as it is confusing as it currently stands. Aside from the RMC article referenced above, we have had some press about our shows. The Reporter, RIT's student run magazine, has reported on us several times over the years as well. There will be an article appearing shortly on [OPSIG] which is a special interest publication for Model Railroaders specific to Operations. On the other side, what makes the WITR %28FM%29 article any more notable? I can easily list various facts about the model railroad as it stands. Boblenon (talk) 03:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems as though perhaps I best spend some time revising the article I wrote - I honestly did not think that it would get flagged so quickly - I will work on revising it more in the next day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boblenon (talk • contribs) 04:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as well as WP:NOT --Storkk (talk) 15:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Weak Delete per Crit, unless notability can truly be established. The fact that RIT's student magazine has reported on a student organization is not surprising, and does not (IMHO) establish notability. Whether OPSIG meets WP:RS is (also, IMHO) doubtful. --Storkk (talk) 15:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What about the other independent, reliable sources I mentioned above? Powers T 16:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * True, I was responding to the author's cited links. However, the two ones you gave are, being generous, marginally indicative of notability. I changed to "weak delete", and it won't be the end of the world if it's kept... I don't think this is a "keep" yet, though. --Storkk (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, none of the independent, reliable sources has this club as its main focus. That's the main reason I haven't substantially changed my mind on the delete/keep question. --Storkk (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The Dispatcher's Office is the quarterly journal of the Operations Special Interest Group (OPSIG) of the National Model Railroad Association. It is an independent academic journal that discusses railroad operating procedures, and how they are modeled and adapted to model railroad systems. RITMRC was featured in Vol. XIV, No. 1 (January 2008). Model railroading is a very old, established hobby that has many independent journals and commerical magazines associated with it. Not all are citable sources that may be recognized like the New York Times, but they are highly identifiable, credible sources within our hobby community. Either way, no harm is intended and I am learning something about the authoring process. Comment added by omv, 13 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.98.150 (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No opinion on the main article, but delete Rochester & Irondequoit Terminal Railroad as NN cruft. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete A single write up in a hobbyist publication is not sufficient notability. The only other individual college model RR club listed is MIT's Tech Model Railroad Club, which is in fact notable for its very early use of digital technology (not surprisingly--since the members were the AI Lab people). DGG (talk) 03:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You forgot about the newspaper and magazine articles. Powers T 15:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would encourage commenters to take another look at the article; it seems some improvements have been made. Powers T 15:59, 15 December 2007 (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.