A fact from Pacific RailNews appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 July 2010, and was viewed approximately 1,300 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
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
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
As a fellow Wikipedian and railroad enthusiast, I'd like to offer my thoughts on the importance of this article. First, it documents the existence of a print source of information. Something that Wikipedia itself relies on greatly. Given the length of time the periodical was published and the IMHO significant number of issues that were produced, the argument can be made that it is part of the integral support structure of Wikipedia itself. Second, notability is relative especially within certain communities or interest groups. Something that is insignificant to one person with one particular set of interests or passions can be critically important to another. Third, the articles inclusion does no harm to WP. Is the article as useful or well developed as others, probably not, but its far from "useless". --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article's proposed deletion was canceled by another editor two days later, and that action was not challenged, so the article is no longer proposed for deletion. SJ Morg (talk) 08:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
