Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tramway Review


 * 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 20:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Tramway Review

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Currenlt only contains primary sources, and does not establish notability. No evidence of historical importance or being used as a reliable source. Contested PROD on the basis "Just because a subject is obscure or esoteric, doesn't mean it's not notable within it's field I feel that it should be put to a larger discussion" with no evidence of notability given. So now I have to enter a AFD request. Oranjblud (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability is adequately established by reference to works such as The Golden Age of Tramways and Guide to current British journals. Warden (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A listing in a directory of journals does not establish notability.
 * That guide is not a commercial directory but was a bibliographic resource published by the Library Association, which was a professional body. I consider it quite satisfactory for our purpose. Warden (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As for the The Golden Age of Tramways I assume you mean this http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6kUVAAAAIAAJ&lpg=PA299 ? I don't think a single reference is sufficient - it's not enough to satisfy Notability_(media), and wouldn't be considered sufficient evidence of notability in any other topic. Oranjblud (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It can be argued as sufficient in this topic. It's a niche topic, you're not going to find major write-ups in the New York Times or Newsweek magazine.  Notability is relative. Roodog2k (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Notability (media) is an essay and so has no standing as a notability guideline. The relevant policy here is WP:PRESERVE.  If we felt that the current page was too slight then, per that policy, we should merge into some more general article such as we see here. Warden (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep See also my other rationales for keeping the other related Railfan journals AfDs for WP:Articles for deletion/Live Steam & Outdoor Railroading (magazine), WP:Articles for deletion/Live Steam & Outdoor Railroading (magazine), WP:Articles for deletion/The New Electric Railway Journal, Articles for deletion/Today's Railways. Roodog2k (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Roodog2k's argument SatuSuro 12:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 15:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 15:34, 6 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; 15:34, 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.