Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Today's Railways UK

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. Geschichte (talk) 10:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Railways UK[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)

NN magazine, fails WP:GNG; WP:NMEDIA. Also nominating its sister magazine for the same reason.

Nightfury 13:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Seems to me an obvious WP:BEFORE failure to preserve by considering merge opportunties and targets ~~and failure to WP:BUNDLE to I'll have to write the same stuff twice.~~Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Djm-leighpark: Please do enlighten me, where do you propose these be merged to? And did you look at the above policies I mentioned in the nomination? Nightfury 10:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nightfury: I'm not proposing these are merged I'm proposing these are kept. As it happened I did look at WP:NMEDIA. Don't believe I looked at WP:GNG but my time is limited; I do look at that from time to time. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep would be my preference, although a merge if the two magazines may be ideal. (They were originally a single article, but were split a year or two ago.) It is, however, virtually impossible to find references for anything to do with the magazines (which I suppose is the whole point of this discussion!); a few years ago I tried to add lots of detail, such as typical contents, about TRUK, but it was removed due to no references despite the fact that anyone who picked up a copy would be able to see it was all accurate.ABB125 (talk) 08:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ABB125; ideally secondary sources are also needed if any content would be kept, just having sources from the subject may come over as being biased, or even advertising, which is discouraged on WP. Nightfury 10:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nightfury; I appreciate that, but secondary sources are practically non-existent for smaller (niche?) magazines like this. By the same logic, the pages for Modern Railways, RAIL and The Railway Magazine should all be deleted, as all the sources (bar one or two for The RM) are links to the publisher's website or articles within the magazines etc. (These are the only three pages I looked at, no doubt there's a similar situation for most other UK railway magazines.)

There's plenty of stuff that could be written about all these magazines which a glance through a copy would confirm as correct, but no way of sourcing it. ABB125 (talk) 11:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are fine for verification of things like contents; relevant and neutral facts about the magazine cited to the magazine itself should not be removed. However, they don't count for notability — we need secondary sources to say that the article should be kept. — Toughpigs (talk) 12:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah right, that makes sense. Unfortunately I'm not aware of any secondary sources for this magazine.ABB125 (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article could do with being expanded but it includes references, including an independent reference. Rillington (talk) 13:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question: WP:NMEDIA says that notability is presumed for magazines "are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets". UK railway enthusiasts are a niche market. Is there anything that can verify that this is a significant publication for that market? — Toughpigs (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in terms ot notability, is on par with other magazines in the UK rail transport magazine category. Like most magazines it does tend to rely on primary sources, but given that it is rare for other publications to make mention of their competitors (at least in a neutral tone) not surprising. Primary sources are ok to use as long as they are used with caution in a non-promotional way per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Bratjoggs (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability is here, shortness of an article doesn't mean not notable. Balle010 (talk) 05:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - with the RS references now added (sadly all obituaries), just gets over the line for WP:GNG. I think a merge discussion with Today's Railway UK and Today's Railway Europe may well be justified though. FOARP (talk) 10:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to added sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2020 (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.