Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Today's Railways


 * 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 11:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Today's Railways

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

No evidence of notability - source currently given, a bookseller, is just a list of items for sale which includes a sales description of the magazine. I should note that List of railroad-related periodicals already can cover the basic details of individually not-notable magazines.Oranjblud (talk) 16:38, 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; 16:46, 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; 16:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 16:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In my view, this magazine is clearly notable - it's probably the best printed English language source of information about contemporary continental European railways, and is distributed worldwide. To establish notability, the most important requirement is a reliable source.  A non-independent source is sometimes still reliable.  Finding independent source material about magazines is actually quite difficult, because non-affiliated periodicals tend not to review each other.  I figured that a comment by a large specialist bookseller was about the best reliable source I was likely to find about a magazine within that specialty.  It's true that the source is not completely independent, and that the quote from the source is a sales description, but there are laws that prevent advertisers from publishing false sales information, and it's reasonable to assume that the bookseller, which has been running a relevant and successful specialist business for a long time, is complying with those laws.  To add weight to the assumption that the source is reliable, I have also cited a second, independent, source confirming the stated information about the bookseller. Bahnfrend (talk) 02:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Amazon has a reputation, too, but still we don't consider it as a reliable source. Booksellers cannot be neutral, after all, they're not going to tell you something like "this novel is absolutely boring"... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * another - a source may add useful and/or interesting information about a topic, without establishing notability - I think the bookseller source refereed to above is an example of this.Oranjblud (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Deleting reliable sources that are used as evidence of notability for other topics seems very counter-productive to this project and, if we go by Notability (media), this easily passes its "are considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area", "are frequently cited by other reliable sources" and "are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets". --Oakshade (talk) 02:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - as per Notability_(media) - you state it meets "are considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area" (and "..frequently cited by other reliable sources..") - no evidence given - as far as I can tell the only place using Today's Railways as a source is wikipedia. In short : wikipedia does not count as a reliable source
 * The magazine may well satisfy other criteria - but if it does it should be verifyable - quote "Notability is presumed for newspapers, magazines and journals that verifiably meet through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria" - my underlining. We can all assert that something is notable, good, expert etc until the cows come home but those assertions remain as opinions without verification. If the magazine is what is claimed it should be easy to supply sources showing so that meet WP:VERIFY. Currently there are no reliable sources establishing notability.Oranjblud (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your rebuttal is simply a straw man argument. Nobody is claiming Wikipedia counts as a reliable source, but that this publication, Today's Railways,  counts as a reliable source and is cited by muliple other reliable sources. --Oakshade (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Widely distributed magazine on its subject matter. G-13114 (talk) 09:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per comments from Bahfrend and Oakshade SatuSuro 09:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable magazine for railway anoraks.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Per guidelines, you can have duplication of information between lists and articles. Also, you seem to be PRODding or nominating every railfan magazine for deletion, which smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Roodog2k (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep at least Today's Railways Europe -- I cannot speak for Today's Railways UK; they are separate magazines as the article now makes clear. The original Today's Railways, now Today's Railways Europe, is AFAIK unique in covering a whole continent, not just mostly one country, as all other railway magazines do. It is an extremely useful English-language source on European railway matters and very well-researched, with excellent maps. The founding editor David Haydock is a respected and well-known railway journalist of long standing. It would seem ridiculous not to have a Wikipedia article about this unique and useful magazine. -- Alarics (talk) 06:47, 6 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.