Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest towns in England without a railway station


 * 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 no consensus. We notoriously disagree about list notability issues. There's no policy basis for me to find a clear consensus in one way or the other here.  Sandstein  07:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

List of largest towns in England without a railway station

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Looks like a rather random list / fancruft The Banner talk 11:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge There seem to be quite a few lists of railway stations in Britain (eg List of closed railway stations in Britain, which is actually a list of 7 lists). On the other hand, most of the dates of when railway stations closed in this article seem to fall within the period of the Beeching Cuts - but the section on Closures by Year in that article shows only the mileage per year, not the major towns affected. I would suggest merging this article with Beeching Cuts - and also making the table sortable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I made the table sortable; this certainly does not seem to rise (sink?) to the level of fancruft, as is claimed by the nominator. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, your edit just did not add a thing to the notability of the list. The Banner talk 16:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete wikipedia is not a random collection of facts with made up criteria, you could create thousands of such negative articles (List of Towns in England without a Bowling Alley/Green Doors/Airports/Garden Centres) but hardly encyclopedic. Also contains another random "largest" criteria which makes it even dafter. MilborneOne (talk) 15:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per MilborneOne....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and MilborneOne. Also WP:SYNTH.  -- wooden  superman  16:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The rail network is a major public concern, so of course large towns with no rail connection makes a notable list. There are numerous books listing railway station closures in great detail .  Newspaper article discussing who has the largest town without a railway station . SpinningSpark 16:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete because it relies on a single “source”. Or merge if some of you really believe it’s that important.Trillfendi (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment There was Articles for deletion/List of British towns with no railway station which was deleted in 2012, this looks to be similar to that, just that this lists them by size, I remember reading that article in 2008, before I even edited Wikipedia and the points about it being vague and OR probably apply here to.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 10:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * See also Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 7. – Fayenatic  L ondon 10:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CLN. The category is non notable and neither is the list. Ajf773 (talk) 10:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not meet WP:LISTN, where are the sources that discuss such towns as a group? inclusion criteria is also ill defined/arbitrary. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per the comment by Redrose64 in the previous discussion: this list does not define the association of town and station (is this judging by municipal boundaries or other lowest-level-local-government boundaries, or something else), so it's inherently unverifiable. Meanwhile, what does "without" mean?  Gosport, the most populous entry on the list, has a railway station.  And back to the previous issue, the second item on the list, Dudley, has two stations "within the town of Dudley" but a mile or more outside the centre (uh, it has 80,000 residents; is any concept of the town restricted to a circle with a one-mile radius?), so again, what's meant here?  No opinion on the fundamental propriety of having a list of this sort, but either it's an inappropriate topic that needs to be deleted because it's inappropriate, or it's an appropriate topic that needs to be deleted on WP:TNT grounds.  Nyttend (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that Gosport railway station is disused, so it might be helpful if it made a distinction between towns that never had one and those that once did.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 10:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep and add details -- This article has difficulties, but I think they would be solved by adding a further column dealing with what stations are nearby and how far they are. I will be voting against keeping the category, but think we should have a list.  One of the difficulties in metropolitan areas is defining the extent of a town, because there are no distinct permanent boundaries.  Dudley Borough includes also Halesowen and Stourbridge, which are historic market towns, but also Brierley Hill and Kingswinford, which are not, though Brierley Hill has (or recently had) a market.  The three stations in the borough are within the pre-1974 borough of Stourbridge.  However Dudley Port and Sandwell and Dudley stations are supposed to serve the town, though outside the borough boundary.  Bromsgrove has a station, but it is very remote from the town centre, within an area added to the town in perhaps 1930s, and a turnpike had to be built to link the station to the town.  Thus in one sense Bromsgrove is a town without a station.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep and add details per SpiingSpark and Peterkingiron. This is a very notable topic, there are parts of the inclusion criteria that are poorly defined but these can be resolved by editing without the need for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - the topic is certainly notable, and many towns claim to be the largest without a station, and it's a repeated topic for local campaigners. The article though is pretty lousy - it gives a list, then says "here's a list of smaller places not included", then lists several places which are bigger than some of those on the list. The inclusion criteria are woolly at best - after all, many places are served by parkway stations outside the town itself. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep  Fancruft?  By railway fans?  When the defining characteristic here is that they don't have a railway?
 * This list is more about town planning / transport issues in the current UK, which owing to historical policy in the 1960s (see Beeching Axe) are today a very current political issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I believe there was a report on this topic a few years back (I can't remember who by now) if that can be found it could be a useful reference. G-13114 (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. One more source to look at "Which parts of Great Britain are furthest from a train station?" to establish notability. Ok, CityMetric is not a peer reviewed scientific journal, but it is part of the New Statesman, so still a reliable source in Wikipedia terms. Even if it wasn't, the author, Alasdair Rae, would get a pass per WP:SPS as a professor at Sheffield University who is previously published in the field. The last word, I think, needs to go to a reply to a "Notes & Queries" piece in The Guardian, "Which is the largest town in Britain that cannot be reached by train? LONDON, probably, if you're travelling by Virgin." Spinning<b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 14:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In fact I am waiting for a List of largest towns in England where nobody speaks Dutch, as the Netherlands are an important trade partner. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 18:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF. Thryduulf (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, these two criteria (no railway station; town size) do not seem to be closely connected. This is an arbitrary list and cannot, in itself, be notable. Also, the difficulty in defining what is a 'town' is in my view fatal to the list definition by itself. Naturenet | Talk 19:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You mean they aren't connected other than in the various reliable sources that connect them? Also "difficult" != "impossible", all that not that it actually difficult - you just look at what definitions the various reliable sources use and use that. If they differ then you discuss the differences as happens in hundreds of other lists on Wikipedia. There is a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT in this discussion (generally, not exclusively from your comment). Thryduulf (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's rare that I'd disagree with you but I might just pick this one up. I am not asserting that there are no sources for the sizes of towns, nor presence of railway stations. Clearly those exist. My suggestion is that the specific connection between the size of the town and the lack of a railway station is not, in itself, obvious or indeed notable. I don't see any reference on the list page or in a casual search which would could support that. Naturenet | Talk 12:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If town cannot be precisely defined and that is a "fatal flaw" for a list then the hundreds of pages in have a big problem. To say nothing of the thousands of articles that claim to be about a specific town.  I suggest that it's more the case that there is a fatal flaw in your rationale. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 00:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually you're not wrong, and I should have been more specific. It's the 'largest' part of the criterion that bothers me, and I speak as a veteran of the List of the largest villages in England battles. In England there is no formal distinction between a town and a village, or any other settlement (except arguably a city), and a definitive list of towns or villages (as distinct from administrative localities) could never exist. That doesn't mean you can't usefully list them out, but it does mean that when you want to fully define the extent of that list (for example by seeking 'the largest') you run into problems. The edge cases which are relevant to this discussion will be towns that form part of a larger conurbations, to take the two top examples on the current page: Gosport is arguably part of Portsmouth, and Portsmouth Harbour Station is about 500m from Gosport town; Dudley is arguably a part of Birmingham, and Dudley Street station is 2.5km from Dudley town centre. My argument is not that these items should or should not be on the list, but that these arbitrary distinctions are not important enough to write a list about. Naturenet | Talk 12:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It isn't actually relevant at all to this list whether the settlement is a town, village or city - what matters is its population. So fortunately this means that any problems of definition of "town" are irrelevant. Regarding what settlements are suburbs and which aren't, again the article can and should just use whatever criteria is used in reliable sources (examples of which have been presented elsewhere in this discussion; yet for some reason the "no reliable sources" arguments keep on coming). Thryduulf (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds fair enough, but it would be helpful if you could point out these sources that connect the size of the town and the lack of a railway station. Also, if it doesn't matter what sort of settlement is described then why mention it in the list title? If it does not actually mean 'town' it should not say so. Naturenet | Talk 00:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Cruft.  Note there exists no source given supporting the notability of the topic, i.e. there is no discussion cited/known that even mentions the topic of towns, much less largest towns, which do not have a railway station.  Per wp:SALAT, about standalone list topics, you have to be able to defend the notability of the topic. Note also in this discussion that there is sentiment/consensus that a corresponding category is invalid.  One way to defend a list would be to have it correspond to a valid category and cite wp:CLNT about correspondence of categories, lists, and navigation templates.  I have used that argument myself.  I am an "inclusionist" and a creator of many big list-articles, but I think this one should be deleted forthwith. --Doncram (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Is this page a political statement?  I think that it is.  To the world it is presenting Wikipedia editors as having the collective opinion that all towns should have train service.  I don't want to be part of that. --Doncram (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how you can read the article and come to the conclusion that this is doing any of those things (making a political statement, Wikipedia editors having a collective opinion, and/or expressing an opinion that all towns should have a train service). This is simply a factual list that implies no more opinion than does List of largest hotels or List of films considered the worst. Thryduulf (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Or List of largest towns in England where nobody speaks Dutch. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 23:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The difference is you can't find sources for that. It's a false example. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 23:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want a genuine language-related example, Municipalities with language facilities does not imply Wikipeida believes all municipalities should offer services in both French and Dutch. Thryduulf (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it is bogus because it is, on the face of it, a ridiculous list-article topic. Why not List of polticians denying being child-molesters etc., i.e. obviously slanted constructions, non-encyclopedic.  Obviously some Wikipedia editors find it sad that places lack a railway station, and are violating Wikipedia principles (wp:OR) to manufacture something.  Ergo, if this is in mainspace, it seems that Wikipedia editors endorse this.  This is embarrassing;  I don't want to be part of that. --Doncram (talk) 06:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There are obvious NPOV and BLP reasons why that example does not exist. Geographic and demographic lists do not have the same issues.  List of highest towns by country does not imply that lower-lying towns are in some way inferior, nor does a lack of a train station.  There is a reason why all your examples are red, and all the counter examples are blue. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 09:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I see that cited references from what appear to be reliable sources for this subject have been provided above. This substanitates notability. FOARP (talk) 13:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. I take no position in the AfD, but note that a similar list for the United States was kept in 2016: Articles for deletion/List of major cities in U.S. lacking Amtrak service. That article does continue to have challenges, but it's not unsalvageable. Mackensen (talk) 12:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment this was the relevant report I mentioned earlier Connecting Communities: Expanding Access to the Rail Network. I found it has a wikipedia article. It might be relevant as a source. G-13114 (talk) 13:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.