Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tasmanian Rail News

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 merge to Australian_Railway_Historical_Society. MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tasmanian Rail News[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for over 5 years; I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a very valid reason and valid point made - as the Tasmanian, and Australian rail editors are very very thin on ground, will try to verify or otherwise of the notability within a short time - so am sitting on the fence for the moment. cheers Satu Suro 13:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Absorb info into Australian_Railway_Historical_Society, and perhaps rather than delete - make this a redirect to ARHS article Satu Suro 13:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per SatuSuro. There is unlikely to be anything more than can be said about the publication, but within the context of the ARHS it is certainly a notable topic (even if not notable on its own) and is a likely search term. Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Could also go with delete because Trove shows very little referencing it. --LauraHale (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient significant coverage in third party sources as shown by trove search. LibStar (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment classic more editors here than there either in Tasmania project or tasmania rail articles in 5 years, as for coverage per third party sources - the whole reason for merging into the ARHS article is that the title of the item itself (Tasmanian Rail News) is an important under-utilised source of info for Tasmanian rail materials - and to see the connection as Thryduulf has made above is what is a practical way of understanding why such items are not really AFD but merge candidates Satu Suro 00:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:07, 15 January 2013 (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.