Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Brunswick Railway Museum

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 05:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Brunswick Railway Museum

[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)

This article has no sources to corroborate it's notability and thus fails WP:GNG. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and New Brunswick. Shellwood (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep It needs cleanup as it's a copyvio unless that's a mirror. But I think there might be enough sourcing for it to survive. Star Mississippi 19:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC) Upgraded to full keep per the further sourcing NemesisAT identified and added. It's a small museum, but it's definitely notable. Star Mississippi 01:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added various sources. Meets WP:GNG NemesisAT (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to agree with NemesisAT here. This clears GNG, though the article needs some cleanup. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks to several for improvement of the article, but that should not be required. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP, and we should not kowtow to every random demand. IMO, the AFD nominator should be chastised for not performing wp:BEFORE, and for not being aware that no references at all are required. It suffices that sources exist. And BTW there is a relevant essay, wp:ITSAMUSEUM (an excellent essay, if i do say so myself).--Doncram (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the museum's notability and the cleanup work done to the article.TH1980 (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and previous people have cleaned up/added citations to this article. Clyde (please @ me if replying) (talk) 03:55, 29 May 2022 (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.