Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General Code of Operating Rules: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 08:57, 7 May 2022

Revision as of 08:59, 7 May 2022

Line 11:

: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)

::"''The above arguments against deletion do not make any reference to Wikipedia policy''". That's wrong. (a) First, I say that WP's policy(!) is a guideline that is ''used'' to establish notability, not a ''law'' that formally excludes objects if they do not fit onto the letter. WP:GNG is so short and unclear that various subareas created their own, substantially differing notability guidelines - e.g., academics start with "''The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline''", which is not at all "derivable" from the main guidelines WP:GNG; it is "newly invented as a common-senes guideline". By analogy, this guideline could immediately be usedadapted for standards: (''The standard has been significantly adopted in its area''). That no-one has done this ''formally'' is no reason at all that it can't be taken as a common-sense guideline. (b) As I said, there are 1000s of documents using, invoking, commenting (via use and selection) GCOR (and NORAC); just work at the FRA. --[[User:Haraldmmueller]] 08:57, 7 May 2022 (UTC)