Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barton House Railway

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. If anybody wants to merge the article to Wroxham, then they can initiate a discussion at the articles talk page, (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barton House Railway[edit]

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

Notability questioned. Use of first person in content suggests promotional and WP:COI. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 14:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as AfD nominator. Note the first person here [1]. Appears to be Gs44767's promotional article. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 14:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - OK, the article needs improvement, but AfD is not for weeding out articles that fall under this criteria. The BHR is not only a ridable miniature railway, but also a railway museum and museum of the Norfolk Broads. Museums are presumed to be generally notable enough to be able to meet WP:GNG. It shouldn't be hard to find independent coverage by the local media, such as this. Mjroots2 (talk) 10:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I wouldn't claim that every 71/4" gauge miniature railway is going to be notable. However this one has evidently lasted 50 years and seems to have a footprint across the local tourism web sites. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete --Another alternative would be to merge with Wroxham, where it is. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could go with a merge and redirect to Wroxham, if they're geographically close enough for that to make sense. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to locality. While there are a couple of sources, they are really quite trivial. It's notability is very borderline. QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For something that has been there 50 years I would say it should stay. After all the Southwold Railway only existed for 50 yearsDavidvaughanwells (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per above. Difficultly north (talk) Simply south alt. 16:25, 26 June 2014 (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.