Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RailReview

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. Waggers TALK 00:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RailReview[edit]

[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)

I had tagged this article for notability concerns earlier today, since all 3 of its refs were primary sources (its own website). The article's creator took umbrage with that tagging and removed the tag. They did add 3 more sources, none of which added to the notability of the subject (1 was yet again to a primary source, and the other two are mere mentions). I tagged it for primary sources, since 4 of the 6 current sources are primary, so that other reviewers would be clued in as to what the issues with the article are. The article's creator has seen fit to remove that tag as well, without any rationale based on policy, or without improving the article. The current sourcing includes those 4 primary sources, and two brief mentions. A BEFORE revealed zero in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable, secondary sources. It appears to be a non-notable trade magazine. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Transportation. AllyD (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not withstanding the author's disruptive attempts to remove the AfD template (despite the clear instructions that it isn't meant to be removed), and insinuations that the nominator is acting "maliciously", this article fails WP:SIGCOV. Referencing this version, ref 1, 2, 3 and 5 are self-published and therefore not independent or reliable. Ref 6 is a passing mention on page 7 of the document, not "significant coverage". I cannot validate ref 4 but reagrdless, it would not be sufficient on its own to justify notability. Daniel (talk) 10:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Daniel. Regarding reference 4, I am missing a few pages but I can access most of it through Google Books' preview, and it doesn't seem to refer to RailReview at all in the bits I can see; I am highly doubtful that it contains signficant coverage of the publication. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reference in full is "A recent cover of RailReview more or less hit the nail on the head within its bracketed hint '(Clue: It's not transport)'". You may be able to access it with this link, it's the second sentence of the last paragraph. It is the perfect example of a passing mention. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:GNG 1AmNobody24 (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of rail transport–related periodicals#United Kingdom. No demonstration of notability, but the publication is present in the list. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of rail transport–related periodicals#United Kingdom, per Trainsandotherthings BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of rail transport–related periodicals#United Kingdom, per TAOT. I'm not able to find significant coverage of this magazine by multiple independent reliable sources in an online search, and I'd expect to be able to find them in an online search given that this was first published in 2014. That being said, redirecting to a place where it is mentioned is an eminently reasonable use of WP:ATD-R. If significant coverage is obtained in the future, then the history is preserved and the article can be re-created then. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a redirect to Bauer Media Group as well. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of rail transport–related periodicals#United Kingdom: BLAR since there is a reasonable destination. Otherwise this would be an easy delete as NN. UtherSRG (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be good with redir to Bauer Media Group. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wasn't going to comment, but there is no good redirect target. The entry at List of rail transport–related periodicals is nothing more than a link to this article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:ATD to Bauer Media Group, where it should also be mentioned by the title or, just maybe, by a sentence. gidonb (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and Daniel. I don't think there's an ideal redirect target in this case. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a publication! Have you considered the publisher as the target? gidonb (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bauer Media Group. The sources used are not enough to demonstrate notability for the subject on its own, but a redirect might be useful here. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 15:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to decide between Deletion and two different redirect targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's WP:GNG concern. Also, no appropriate redirect target per User:ActivelyDisinterested. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2023 (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.