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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pentrex[edit]

Pentrex (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)

Reason - not notable. - contested PROD but not solid evidence of why prod was contested actually provided. Article currently contains a single review by Wisconsin Bookwatch as the only coverage. Other references are self-sources, or from sources connected with the title. Found no evidence for notability Oranjblud (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Although not currently published, notability is not temporary. Having said that, this did pass Notability guidelines for media. I say it's a weak keep because it may be better to merge. But I am against outright deletion. Nom has also PRODded and put to AfD basically every article on railfan magazines, which I don't understand. Smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Roodog2k (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WTF is "this did pass Notability guidelines for media" - it didn't - if it did please WP:VERIFY what you claim.Oranjblud (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. 1) [The medium] have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history. This is one of the criteria. Notability is not temporary. Many of these magazines had been around for years before going either out-of-business or sold;. 2) Are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets. This is one I am unsure about. I'm not a railfan, and it's niche subject matter. But, I wouldn't say it's trivial. But, it is a recognized hobby, following around trains and photographing them. I'm only suggesting that these deletions be discussed to reach a concensus, rather than being unilaterally deleted based on one persons viewpoint.Roodog2k (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can claim 'historic' that for anything over ten years old - the guidelines ask for verifiable sources that show it "served some historic purpose". Again ,what you consider trivia/not trivia is subjective - moreover it doesn't help the article - the only thing that helps/improves the article is content/verifyable sources. Again WP:VERIFY - specifically see Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Newspapers.2C_magazines_and_journals "Notability is presumed for newspapers, magazines and journals that verifiably meet through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:" - if reliable sources cannot be found the obvious assumption to make is that it is not objectively notable.Oranjblud (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google scholar search, found a handful of references (about 20) that reference this. When you PRODded the article and nominated it for deletion, did you WP:BEFORE? Roodog2k (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely - 42 articles were PRODded in less than one hour. 85 seconds per article isn't enough. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - WP:POINTY nomination. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Since the lack of a link to the Highbeam article was put forth as a reason to delete the article, let me give it here: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-164830594.html (the full text is however also available online for free elsewhere, so I decided to link that instead in the reference). The Midwest Book Review seems to be a organization which does not accept paid reviews, so that publication can be regarded as an independent source. Also, in the following year, another of its publications stated that "Pentrex is the leading producer of railroading DVDs". Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:47, 6 July 2012 (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.