Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crow Nest 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. ✗ plicit  23:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Crow Nest Junction

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Clearly fails WP:GNG - signalling section unsourced, and electrification likely covered in much greater detail elsewhere. Rly junctions generally do not need their own articles. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I don’t really have a strong opinion on the article deletion. It could certainly be merged rather than fully deleted. I agree that it is highly likely to be covered elsewhere such as North West England electrification schemes for example.GRALISTAIR (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Of course I am struggling to see why it is now being considered for deletion after 13 years? GRALISTAIR (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisting. What would be a possible Merge target? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I cannot find any evidence of independent notability. The only referenced material is about electrification of lines that happen to meet at the junction, not about the junction itself. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak delete So compare this to the discussion for Weaver Junction article; it has few sources and much more prose written without sources to back it up. It has more photos than the Weaver article does, but less to prove where the info was gotten. Most of it appears as original research; there is likely an article that can be cobbled together from multiple sources as the Weaver article has been. This is not there yet. Oaktree b (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:GNG with no indications of notability. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.