Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The New Electric Railway Journal


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 20:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The New Electric Railway Journal

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Reason - doesn't establish notability. I should comment on the references - it is well referenced - the majority are self references, or articles by Richard R. Kunz or  Paul M. Weyrich, both closely involved with the magazine (ie founder, editor in chief). Other references are links to worldcat and internet archive. The only source that goes some way to establishing notability is that issues of the magazine was reviewed in Light Rail & Modern Tramway magazine. Seems to be somewhat overblown coverage overall eg ''Issues were 46–50 pages in length until 1994, thereafter 38–40 pages. The magazine used good-quality paper'' which suggests to me that there is really little to say. May or may not be notable, needs looking at. Oranjblud (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 05:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 05:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 05:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Although not currently published, notability is not temporary. Having said that, this did pass Notability guidelines for media.  I say it's a weak keep because it may be better to merge.  But I am against outright deletion. Nom has also PRODded and put to AfD basically every article on railfan magazines, which I don't understand.  Smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Roodog2k (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * When did it pass notability guidelines for media? Consider this - never was notable - still isn't notable - can you supply one dot of evidence that this isn't the case?Oranjblud (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - It's hard to see nominating every railroad trade reliable source as a good faith effort and at looks more like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT as indicated by Roodog2k]]. If we go by Notability (media) it easily passes the "are frequently cited by other reliable sources" clause,  just as all of these periodicals the nom has nominate for Afd.--Oakshade (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - As long as an article has enough independent references, the fact that a "majority" of its citations are self-references is not relevant to establishing notability, and in the case of this article, that situation is more a reflection of this article's being much more thorough than most Wikipedia articles about "niche" magazines – i.e. the fact that the article includes so many references in total. As long as the self-references are for NPOV content, they are fine. On the main question, notability: The article cites enough sources that are not affiliated with the subject (and specifically refer to the magazine) to establish notability. In addition, it is very significant that the American Public Transportation Association, whose membership is composed of virtually all public transit authorities in the U.S., has archived many articles from TNERJ on its website, where they remain available currently (2012) - a clear indication that the magazine's articles are seen by that body as still having value as a reference, even 14 years after the magazine ceased publication. Regarding the nominator's comment on one excerpt from the article:  The mention of the number of pages in an average issue (which is just one phrase from a 6500-character article) is not "overblown coverage", but rather is basic descriptive information that should be included in every Wikipedia article about a magazine. SJ Morg (talk) 09:57, 10 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.