Talk:Light Railway Research Society of Australia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Light Railway Research Society of Australia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Light Railway Research Society of Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Trains Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notability[edit]

If there is a need for an extended explanation here as to why this association and its journal are indeed notable, please try a question here and I can answer and qualify.

I have only seen some odd and unsubstantiated claims on the main pages of both items, talk p[ages are for the specific purpose for any taggers top come here and show their understanding of due process as to the veracity of the item JarrahTree 09:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added additional references which go directly to the notability of the topic - see current ref 4 and ref 5.Garyvines (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see anything that indicates it passes WP:GNG - specifically that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

Number 5 was an academic paper by Kevin J. Frawley. The text in the article was an almost verbatim copy/paste, but the source could be used to support notability. I've removed the copyright violation and we should figure out how to use his claim that the Society has done good research. The Dissident Aggressor 15:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]