Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trains and 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   redirect to Rail transport. Consensus is not to have this as a separate article until it's shown to be notable. The two "keep" opinions do not address the notability concerns at all and are therefore discounted (see User:Sandstein/AfD closing)  Sandstein   07:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Trains and Railways

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Existed for ~2 years. No evidence of notability - seems extremely unlikely to have been or be notable. I should note that List of railroad-related periodicals already covers the basic details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oranjblud (talk • contribs) 17:17, 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; 17:26, 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; 17:26, 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; 17:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep as part of a WP:POINTy WP:IDONTLIKEIT campaign by the nominator - PRODding 42 articles in less than an hour is not evidence of good faith or following WP:BEFORE. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   16:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Delete There's nothing in the article to suggest this became notable in any way in the 2 years it existed in the early 70s. Suggest a redirect to List of railroad-related periodicals, where it's already mentioned. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  22:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep (posted on behalf of page creator, see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Trains and Railways). -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Rail transport. This is a plausible search term and should not be deleted.  If someone finds independent sources for Trains and Railways the magazine, then the content would belong in Trains and Railways (magazine) (and will be available in the history to work from), but the principle of least astonishment says "trains and railways" should point to "rail transport".— S Marshall  T/C 22:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect as per User:S Marshall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartyeates (talk • contribs)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:42, 21 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.