Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michigan AuSable Valley Railroad

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. A Guy into Books (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan AuSable Valley Railroad[edit]

Michigan AuSable Valley Railroad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

doesn't meet WP:GNG. This is a tourist attraction, not a railroad, and there is no indication it is a very well known tourist attraction. The article seems to be more a directory listing in a tourist guide than an encyclopedia article. John from Idegon (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. --Bamyers99 (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-delete Redirect to Fairview, Michigan  I doubt that the nom would have claimed this topic failed WP:GNG had he/she reported the WP:BEFORE D1 results for Google books.  But the article as it stands fails WP:V#Notability, and there is an excellent redirect target, so the point is academic.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - There is absolutely no indication of anything resembling notability in a Google book search. This GB search shows a brief mention in an "oddball" tourist site guide and mention of the attraction in three seperate editions of a tourist railroad guide published by a publishing house that specializes in hobby publications, Kalmbach Publishing. Listings in guidebooks do not speak to notability, even multiple ones, altho in this case we have effectively only 2. Not completely irrelevant is the fact that the owner of this attraction is a regular advertiser in several of the publisher of the tourist railroad guide's magazines, making them at least somewhat less than independent. No Redirect should be made, as keeping this is just yet another step in selling Wikipedia down the river to promotional interests. John from Idegon (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see that I was wrong.  As to the statement "absolutely no indication of anything resembling notability", this I cannot verify. 

Railfan & Railroad has been around since the 1970s, so when a Google snippet reports Railroad & Railfan as saying that the Schrader's catalog has "fame", I think this means what it says.  According to the snippet, the writer is aware of colors, sound, and restoration history of the Hudson engine, and the snippet goes on to discuss a diesel engine.  This is in-depth.  As for "selling Wikipedia down the river", and I mean this respectfully, Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep  I'm changing my !vote to keep as the article has gone through a major upgrade.  Regarding one specific point I mentioned above, it no longer fails WP:V#Notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
agreed LibStar (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If so, you'd be able to identify at least one thing about which you agreed.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
everything. This AfD may explain your behavior in the other AfD and your tendency to argue. LibStar (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note User:LibStar has edited the discussion without leaving a note in the discussion that the discussion has been altered.  See WP:TPO, which states (bold in original), "Never edit...someone's comment to change its meaning".  Unscintillating (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per the nomination, this is a tourist attraction. --doncram 13:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no inherent notability in being a tourist attraction. LibStar (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a little shadow that goes in and out with me,. And what can be the use of him is more than I can see. --doncram 21:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim is made as a proof by assertion that "tourist attractions are not inherently notable".  First of all, this is a straw man because the OP here said nothing about inherent notability.  Secondly, the retort fails to knock down the straw man, since as per the WP:N nutshell, notable topics are those which have attracted "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time".  Thirdly, returning to the proof by assertion, note that as per WP:Articles for deletion#How to contribute, "a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive."  Unscintillating (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We've got a keep, a redirect w/o deletion, and a delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Google footprint is tiny and I am not seeing a single source that counts to GNG. Carrite (talk) 11:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will strike my opinion and get out of the way to make determination of consensus easier, given the trend of the arguments below. Carrite (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the Google books search yields coverage in multiple guidebooks and perhaps other sources. --doncram 17:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No compliance with WP:Before. In any event, meets WP:GNG. Took five years to build. Been operational for 20 years; closing this year. Article needs to be expanded. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added lots of sources and content, which establish beyond any reasonable doubt that this is an important tourist destination to those who are miniature railroad afficiandos. It was covered in the usual sources given the subject matter. This establishes further that WP:Before was more honored in the breach than the observance. Given its relatively obscure and remote locale, it has received a lot of mention. I will continue to add sources, but I am done for this evening. Sweet dreams. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posting I posted neutral notices at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains and Talk:Ridable miniature railway regarding this discussion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep public transportation using a steam locomotive. I don't know what US regulations are, but in the UK this would be subject to Transport and Works Act 1992, official boiler inspections etc. Not saying this gives WP notability, just that it's not (just) someone's model train set. Article's really twee, tho' :) Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 05:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Railway stations are considered notable, simply because they are a structure. Even a small halt in the middle of nowhere. I think a railway like this easily meets the criteria for notability. In all honesty, I could find a 1000 other articles that are less notable than this. Morphenniel (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reasons given below (with thanks to 7&6=thirteen).The joy of all things (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree with Morphenniel, there are worse articles out there. Additionally, deletion is an extreme, it could be moved under its own header into the article about the National Park that it is located in and the original article turned into a redirect.
It's within a National Forest, not a National Park. But otherwise, I agree. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article is borderline notable, but there's enough sources to keep, especially Guide to Tourist Railroads and Museums. 7&6=thirteen deserves a barnstar. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are a few third-party sources to establish notability there. The fact this is a tourist attraction isn't a reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:20, 17 August 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michigan_AuSable_Valley_Railroad&oldid=1077959727"