Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General Code of Operating Rules: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Truthanado (talk | contribs) Oppose |
Delete/redirect. |
||
Line 9:
:'''Oppose'''. This deletion request fails on at least two levels: (a) First, a standard that is applied by a major subset of an industry is per se relevant. This is e.g. also true for all ISO standards, and also all major laws. It is ''not necessary'' by WP standards that the ''amount'' of secondary literature about a subject is used as a indicator of the relevance - adoption of something in the real world by itself can make it relevant. (b) But additionally, there ''are'' thousands of documents citing and using the GCOR; first of all of course derived rulebooks, but then many FRA documents e.g. about accidents or incidents, and also secondary literature about e.g. adherence to standards. Probably quite a few of these can be found online (FRA documents), but also scientific literature. One article I found after half a minute of googling doesn't even mention the GCOR in its ''literature'' list - it just references the GCOR as a ''well-known resource'', and only puts the four letters and their expansion in the abbreviation list. Yet, and of course, one can doubt the ''quality'' of an article that does not try to explain why its subjects matters - but this is no reason for deletion, only for improvement. --[[User:Haraldmmueller]] 07:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' per [[User:Haraldmmueller]]'s comments. Further, encyclopedic information about GCOR is relevant to many users of Wikipedia interested in information about railways, as indicated by this article's longevity, created in 2007 and edited and improved by many Wikipedians. [[User:Truthanado|Truthanado]] ([[User talk:Truthanado|talk]]) 19:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
:Since both opposes were basically copy-pasted between [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northeast Operating Rules Advisory Committee]] and here, I shall copy-paste mine from there as well:
:'''Delete''' or '''Redirect''' to a suitable target. (Noting that I was made aware of this AfD at my talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Trainsandotherthings&curid=68304832&diff=1086430389&oldid=1086037176]) The above arguments against deletion do not make any reference to Wikipedia policy, merely saying "we can't delete it because people use GCOR in the real world!" People use textbooks all the time in the real world, that doesn't mean they are Wikipedia notable. Ideally I'd like to see an article on [[Railroad safety in the United States]] or [[Railroad operations in the United States]], where something like this topic could be briefly mentioned. An article's longevity means '''nothing''' about its notability. I once got [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewell train|a 10 year old hoax article deleted]]. That it was present for 10 years did not make it any less of a hoax. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 23:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
| |||