Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volunteer Railroaders Association

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 no consensus. Sandstein 11:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Railroaders Association

Volunteer Railroaders Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, a newspaper search reveals significant coverage focusing on this organisation, I've added three newspaper sources.
  talk) 23:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • That's just local press coverage. Per
    WP:NGO also notes that local organizations like this one are not notable unless they have received coverage from "outside the organization's local area". This group doesn't appear to have attracted any attention from sources outside the north New Jersey area. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep per GNG: notable as a volunteer organisation that takes up charitable activities for children. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've not looked at what state the article was in when nominated, but now it's well sourced and clearly meets the GNG. Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Only gets local coverage. Doesn't qualify for
  WP:GNG for me. Missvain (talk) 02:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete- As an organization, it must overcome the
  Rusf10 (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• comment, Thank you all for the time taken to view my 1st Wiki. Notability by Wiki standard is near impossible to achieve nationally as in the rail industry the 'takers' outnumber the 'givers' by 99 to 1 or more. FullScale4Me (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Have added a New York newspaper source that is regional covering the organization's interstate steam operations, to meet
  WP:HEY.  JGHowes  ^talk 22:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • A single-sentence
    trivial statement that something was "sponsored in conjunction with New Jersey Transit and the Volunteer Railroaders Association..." doesn't move the needle for me. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Its both trivial and still local because New York is local.--
      Rusf10 (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • A two-page, 6-column illustrated article in a tri-state region newspaper focused on the interstate excursions this organization co-sponsored for three years with NJ Transit, the state-owned public transportation system that serves New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, is trivial and local? Wow.  JGHowes  ^talk 17:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • "the state-owned public transportation system that serves New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania" (emphasis mine)--
          Rusf10 (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Sorry, could you clarify what point you're trying to make with this comment? Thanks
            talk) 20:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • I thought it was clear, but NJ Transit operates trains in Rockland County, NY which is part of the coverage area of the newspaper.--
              Rusf10 (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
              ]
        • I would tend to agree that regional press coverage isn't local. But it still seems clear to me that this is trivial: as
          WP:ORGDEPTH notes, "sources that describe only a specific topic related to the organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization." The New York article provides nothing but a name-check of the organization itself, so it isn't sigcov. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
          ]
• Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per HEY and the sources found by JGHowes. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 11:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as many editors have stepped forward and made a huge improvement to existing section and added new ones.FullScale4Me (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FullScale4Me: – you already !voted. Could you change the second "keep" to "comment" or something like that? Cheers. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (They've now changed their previous post of June 10 from "Keep" to "Comment") - JGHowes 19:12, 8 July 2021 (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.