Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trainmaster Command Control

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. No "good faith" arguments for deletion besides the nominator (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trainmaster Command Control

Procedural nom, contested prod. Unreferenced. A search for references has failed to find significant coverage (only trivial or incidental coverage) in reliable sources in order to comply with notability requirements. McWomble (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, no significant coverage sources Arma virumque cano (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC) This user has since been blocked as a sockpuppet. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 19:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to a notable control system within the model train community. Could possibly be merged with Digital Command System (also nominated for deletion) into one article Model train control systems --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The threshold for notability is significant coverage in reliable sources. The article does not even assert the importance or significance of the subject let alone provide reliable sources to support such a claim. McWomble (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: control systems as a whole are clearly notable, so I have gone ahead and created that article. This could be merged there, if desired, but it is a bit long to comfortably fit so I could go either way with keep or merge. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As this discussion pertains to popular culture rather than academic interests an assessment of what constitutes significant coverage and reliable sources should be interpreted less rigorously (Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Popular_culture_and_fiction). I submit that material from model railroad magazines should be admissible here "especially when comments on its reliability are included." (as per the link just cited). Muzhogg (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per Arma virumque cano. Cosmomancer (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this user has been indefinitely blocked as a probable sock puppet of User:McWomble--ThaddeusB (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: has received non-trivial coverage in the following books (among others): [1]

[2] [3] --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Absolutely. What is this Not notable, no significant coverage sources claim? A Gbook search returns many book hits, I count 19 relevant references in the first 20 book hits (!) The hits thereafter are thin, but coverage in 19 books should suffice for inclusion in Wikipedia. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The proposed basis for deletion is unrealistic given the article refers to an issue specific to a narrow interest group and could only be considered notable in that context. Significant coverage is provided by high quality, hobby specific periodicals. Muzhogg (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above. The information is valid for those interested in trains. It has been mentioned in several books. Dream Focus 19:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2009 (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.