Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Round Top Branch

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. (non-admin closure) Gongshow ^Talk 06:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Round Top Branch

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

Seems to fail the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guidelines. Wild Wolf (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has plenty of references that indicate notability. Besides, a railroad branch is neither an organization nor a company, so the cited guideline is irrelevant. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 09:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Don't nominate things for deletion if they "seem" to fail WP:N, make yourself sure using WP:BEFORE! In any event, I have to agree with TheCatalyst31 that plenty of references seem to exist. I would work to improve the article if I knew what was wrong with it (aside for generally needing some cleanup).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample references for this railroad branch. Perhaps some cleanup is needed, but not deletion. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above keeps.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Note to nom -- When you nominate an article for deletion, and all !voters agree that the text of the article should be kept, there may be a message in it for you. I hope that this feedback will inform your future nomination activity.

I also see that through this moment, in your wikipedia career you've !voted at 24 AfDs that have closed, all delete !votes (which is fine in and of itself), most as the nom. But -- only 1 of those AfDs ended up as a redirect, and none of them were closed as a delete. Perhaps you might give thought as to whether this should slow your nomination activity, until you have a firmer sense as to how the community understands our notability guidelines. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - notability clearly established. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs improving to establish what is important about it and untangle the somewhat breathless prose. Per Epeefleche, see also the other ongoing railroad nominations - all need improving, none need deleting. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious snow keep Ample references, enough valid information to fill an article. Dream Focus 09:47, 30 January 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.