Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arkleston Junction

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 delete. Consensus is the junction isn't notable. If someone needs the history to merge, or to create an article on the crash, happy to provide. Star Mississippi 01:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arkleston Junction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Relies entirely on two inline references (one from 8 years ago, the other 13), and clearly fails to meet WP:GNG, along with its 'sister article', Shields Junction. Rly junctions almost never warrant their own article. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, age of cites is irrelevant. Rossonwy (talk) 06:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not seeing sources which meet WP:GNG and I can't find them online either. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've added sources and info on a crash that occurred here that resulted in one death and 96 injuries. The rationale is rather flawed in that it appears to dismiss sources because of their age. Garuda3 (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG. The crash doesn't make the junction notable, because notability is not inherited. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Where do you propose that verifiable information be merged? Garuda3 (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Paisley Gilmour Street railway station is only a mile away...? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Make an article on the collision? Only the present use section even has a single citation besides the stuff on the collision. And not everything that is verifiable is automatically worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not obligated to propose a merge target, either. Just because you think nothing should ever be deleted doesn't mean the rest of the community shares that viewpoint. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 5 October 2022 (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.