Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General Code of Operating Rules: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Reply. |
|||
Line 16:
::(*) Essentially, you make an ''exclusionary'' argument: What doesn't fit today's "rules", must die. I make an ''inclusionary'' one: What fits a useful interpretation of WP's intention, should remain (or be included).
::--[[User:Haraldmmueller]] 08:57, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
:::I did provide a method of retaining the material in my vote, rather than simply saying "delete". I do not think it is possible to retain a standalone page on the subject. I am quite familiar with these operating rules, in fact I am qualified on NORAC operating rules. But we need reliable, independent, secondary sources to establish notability. Another alternative would be to create a single article on [[Railroad operating rules]] as a topic, which is something that likely would meet notability. Operating rules would also be worth mentioning within [[Rail transport operations]]. The articles in question (NORAC and GCOR) lack citations to such sources. You keep saying "there are 1000s of documents using, invoking, commenting (via use and selection) GCOR (and NORAC)". If so, can you show some reliable secondary sources discussing the subject? {{pb}} {{tq|What I find astonishing is that someone calling himself [[User:Trainsandotherthings|'''Trains'''andotherthings]] tries to remove an article about an obviously very relevant railroad subject. Why would someone want to do that??? - and not instead try to come up with any arguments of why it should be kept, ways of how it could improved, ideas of how we can repair WP if its current practices actually would be inclined to suppress such an obviously relevant topic??}} This particularly grinds my gears. If you doubt my commitment to improving Wikipedia's coverage of train topics, I invite you to check my content work listed on my userpage, including literally bringing [[Train]] to GA status. AfD is not a place to complain about Wikipedia policy. If you want it to be changed, you're more than welcome to start a discussion at the village pump. Your use of terms like "obviously relevant" is but a matter of opinion as it stands - the way to support that argument is to provide examples of significant coverage of the topic in reliable secondary sources, which you have not done. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 22:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
| |||