It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from an article. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
I have replied to your message on the talk page of this article. Please note that you haven't (as I write this) completed the AfD nomination process yet. Please read and follow the instructions for listing an article at AfD if you haven't already. I'm afraid this article is clearly notable and it is easy to cite multiple [{WP:RS|reliable sources]] that show its notability. I agree with you that it requires proper citation, but the way to achieve that is to put a {{ sources}} tag on the article, not try to have it deleted. Thanks, Gwernol 22:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- You still haven't completed the AfD for List of heritage railways. Please do so, or I will remove the AfD notice from the article. I will point out that just like List of transport museums, the List of heritage railways is extremely unlikely to be deleted since the subject matter is clearly notable. Coud you explain why are you trying to have articles related to the railway preservation movement deleted when they are obviously notable? Here is a New York Times article on a railroad museum, here is another from the San Francisco Chronicle, here is one from the BBC. There are hundreds of reputable sources for this subject which even a two minute Google search turns up. Please explain why you appear to be targeting articles on this subject for deletion. Thanks, Gwernol 23:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have gone ahead and removed the AfD notice from the List of heritage railways article since the AfD itself remains incomplete. You can replace it if you complete the AfD process for this article, but I will ask you to first read our policy on not disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. I don't see what justification there would be for proposing that article for deletion. Thanks, Gwernol 00:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from an article. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
I have replied to your message on the talk page of this article. Please note that you haven't (as I write this) completed the AfD nomination process yet. Please read and follow the instructions for listing an article at AfD if you haven't already. I'm afraid this article is clearly notable and it is easy to cite multiple [{WP:RS|reliable sources]] that show its notability. I agree with you that it requires proper citation, but the way to achieve that is to put a {{ sources}} tag on the article, not try to have it deleted. Thanks, Gwernol 22:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- You still haven't completed the AfD for List of heritage railways. Please do so, or I will remove the AfD notice from the article. I will point out that just like List of transport museums, the List of heritage railways is extremely unlikely to be deleted since the subject matter is clearly notable. Coud you explain why are you trying to have articles related to the railway preservation movement deleted when they are obviously notable? Here is a New York Times article on a railroad museum, here is another from the San Francisco Chronicle, here is one from the BBC. There are hundreds of reputable sources for this subject which even a two minute Google search turns up. Please explain why you appear to be targeting articles on this subject for deletion. Thanks, Gwernol 23:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have gone ahead and removed the AfD notice from the List of heritage railways article since the AfD itself remains incomplete. You can replace it if you complete the AfD process for this article, but I will ask you to first read our policy on not disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. I don't see what justification there would be for proposing that article for deletion. Thanks, Gwernol 00:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)