Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trainorama

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 delete. Maxim (☎) 21:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trainorama[edit]

The subject of this article appears to lack sufficient notability for inclusion: the subject does not seem to have received non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources. This should perhaps not be surprising, given that the company is only five years old. An online search for sources, including a standard web search (searches performed: Trainorama, Ozmodoco, Tom's Hobbies) and Google News and Books searches, yields sources that are unreliable or provide only directory-level coverage of the company. In fact, most mentions of "Trainorama" are in reference to an unrelated model train convention and most hits for "Tom's hobbies" are to personal blogs or memorials for people named Tom. Proposed deletion of the article was contested, so I am bringing it to AfD for community review. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the Australian Model Railway Magazine [1] has some articles on the background of the company, they have dealt with various other Australian model railway companies as well. I'll need to did around in my collection. Wongm (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article fails to demonstrate, or even assert, any particular notability for the subject company. Articles of this kind should at least meet the primary criterion for notability of a company specified at WP:COMPANY. Article looks like an entry in a trade directory. Wikipedia is most definitely not a trade directory, and should not be used as one. The article makes many claims but not one is supported by any reference or in-line citation. Dolphin51 (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article is boring, and has no references. On the other hand, some Googling indicates it's got a large following among model train enthusiasts. If I narrow the Google search down to Australian Model Railway magazine (here), it shows it is mentioned quite a few times. The author needs to do some work to prove to everyone that it is a notable company. Add references from known magazines and publications. --Lester 02:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 04:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems notable. Needs better sourcing, not deletion. --Reinoutr (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the mentions in Australian Model Railway Magazine seem to be reviews of various models manufacted by Trainorama. Since the magazine is not offered online (at least not freely), I can't determine whether any of the articles actually talk about the company. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - I dug up my collection the other day, as Black Falcon suggests, all I could find was reviews of their products, as well as a few mentions in the 'news' section. A few mentions of the company history, but no full articles on that topic. Wongm (talk) 05:15, 27 August 2008 (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.