Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General Code of Operating Rules

General Code of Operating Rules

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG and is mostly copy/pasted from one source. Ironmatic1 (talk) 03:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ironmatic1 (talk) 03:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Truthanado (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 [1]) 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 a 10 year old hoax article deleted. That it was present for 10 years did not make it any less of a hoax. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"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 to 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 adapted 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.

(*) Essentially, you make an exclusionary argument: What doesn't fit today's "rules", must die. I make aninclusionary one: What fits a useful interpretation of WP's intention, should remain (or be included). --User:Haraldmmueller 08:57, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]