Deletion of Mozart (train)

Comment: Notability is sufficiently verifiable, and even verified. And a named passenger train is a service; any special equipment on it is secondary. Nom seems no to have known that at the time of nomination, and didn't sufficiently look at that |before nominating. A good faith error
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: article relies on three short paragraphs on a fan website, several timetables and a mention in a book about Mozart the composer. These aren't significant coverage in |reliable sources, therefore the subject fails . We have no idea whether the 'Further reading' contains anything of significance -  I would think that if it did, the author would have already referenced it in the article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG)

Comment: major international train service of historic notability. Lack of google sources is not a strong argument - it is unlikely to be widely covered online because the Internet suffers from 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM)

Comment: This train does not appear to be the subject of any reliable independent secondary sources, as required by the main notability guideline . A Google search turns up nothing but this article, YouTube videos, and a load of "TripAdvisor" type websites. These websites are all-inclusive by nature and are not independent of the subject, so are therefore unsuitable for asserting notability. Incidentally, Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations)|Notability (Railway lines and stations) is an essay not a notability guideline, so it carries no weight in this discussion and it appears to be at odds with the main notability guideline . &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:GNG)

Comment: but the article is relatively poorly sourced.  I vote "keep" because Wikipedia's deletion guidelines only require that there be compelling evidence that a subject is notable, not that such evidence must be included in the article at present, as Bahnfrend noted above.  It's a named train that ran for more than half a century, with the same name and approximately the same route, serving several major cities in three countries. Tags urging the addition of better sources and more inline citations are definitely called for, but not deletion.  Regarding the sourcing:  Most of the content that is cited (with inline citations) comes from two websites, both of which are questionable sources.  One, www.grahnert.de, identifies itself (in German) as "the Internet pages of Marcus Grahnert".  Under , very rarely are personal websites suitable sources for WP content (thousands of WP articles use such sources, but that doesn't make it acceptable).  Mr. Grahnert ''may'' be well informed, and the content on his site ''may'' be very accurate, but there's no way for Wikipedia readers to know whether it is or not.  The other source, www.trains-en-voyage.com, is also worrisome, because whoever is behind it does not identify themselves.  Unlike Mr. Grahnert's site, this site appears to be for a group, but nowhere on the site can I find any information as to the name of a group, or person, it represents – not even on its "contact" page (which refers to the "webmaster" without giving any name); it has no "about this website" page, not in any language.  Look, I'm a railfan myself, but websites of individuals or of unnamed groups that (apparently) have no paid staff or elected officers are not acceptable sources for WP content, because they have no accountability.  Websites of formal organizations, even railfan ones, at least have some degree of accountability for accuracy of content that they put on the web, so I consider those to be OK. If Mr. Grahnert were a widely recognized authority on the subject area, or had authored several books, e.g., then I would hold a different view of whether his website is a suitable source for Wikipedia, but I find no evidence of that
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)