Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rail transport–related periodicals

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The result was Withdrawn. Bigger fish to fry. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of rail transport–related periodicals

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:V (there's no source for much of this, some sections are entirely redlinks), is basically a typical example WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and accomplishes no purpose that couldn't already be done via Category:Rail transport publications. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No, it doesn't fail WP:V because that policy states that sources are only required for quotations and controversial facts. And facts such as the existence of the famous Bradshaw's Guide are not controversial at all. Claiming that categories are the answer is absurdly contradictory because they are comparatively hopeless at satisfying WP:V because they don't support citations. This is all explained at WP:CLN which states that "arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." So this is just more driveby deletionism – another nomination of a long-standing list contrary to logic and policy. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The existence of most of these entries is clearly verified by an ISSN and/or the linked article, and that they are related to rail transport is also not controversial as a whole. In other words, the nomination statement is factually incorrect. If there are any incorrect entries they can be removed without requiring deletion of the whole list, likewise any improvements to the organisation or changes to the scope of the list can be proposed on the talk page and do not require deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.