Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meon Valley Passing loop


 * 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. Daniel (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Meon Valley Passing loop

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested prod. The concern was "Most of this article is actually about the broader Watercress Line, there is no evidence that a 200-metre passing loop is independently notable." and the edits to the article since then (by an IP who is almost certainly the author evading their partial block) citing a YouTube video tour of the whole line do nothing to address this. Thryduulf (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. 03:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transport-related deletion discussions. 03:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: Per nom. this has multiple issues. A passing loop will virtually always be non-notable with 99.999+% probability; this is not the exception.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No to getting removed. That it is part of the largest relay interlocking outside of Network Rail and the fact that it can run with humans in the box and when in use the signal box must have a person in it, this makes it notable. --I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I with the comment "Minor feature without adequate sourcing - even the claimed length of 200 metres is unsourced." Since then, nothing has changed to rectify the sourcing. Many stations have psssing loops, and few of them deserve any sort of special coverage that we would not accord to, for example, ticket offices or platform canopies. Any sourced info may be placed in Alton railway station, but should not be a separate article. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No to getting removed. That it is part of the largest relay interlocking outside of Network Rail and the fact that it can run with humans in the box and when in use the signal box must have a person in it. --I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If that fact makes it notable, it should be discussed in books... Pontificalibus 15:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If that is verifiable in independent reliable sources, it would be an argument for an article about the whole interlocking installation not one small part of it. It would still need coverage in multiple independent reliable sources though in order to meet the general notability guide - the guide to what consensus is that Wikipedia should and should not have articles about. Thryduulf (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have found an other source. --I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your first source is about signalling on the Watercress Line as a whole and has no in-depth coverage of this passing loop. It does not verify your claim that "it is part of the largest relay interlocking outside of Network Rail". As far as I can tell, your second source does not mention either the Meon Valley Passing loop or the interlocking at all. Thryduulf (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * delete It is exceptionally unlikely that a passing siding could ever be notable, and there's no such claim here. I did find it, and it's an unremarkable piece of trackage. Mangoe (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No to getting removed. That it is part of the largest relay interlocking outside of Network Rail and the fact that it can run with humans in the box and when in use the signal box must have a person in it. --I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep It should be keept as it's own article or merger with Watercress Line and Alton railway station and Medstead and Four Marks railway station and Ropley railway station and Alresford railway station (Hampshire) and Meon Valley Railway and Basingstoke and Alton Light Railway.--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Why on earth should we merge it to Medstead and Four Marks railway station and Ropley railway station? It's not at either of those stations. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Because it lets more trains run and impact the use of the signal box and there is a siding wich is used to store permanent way rolling stock on the old down line and the mainline is on the old up line..--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No. On that basis we would describe Worting Junction at every station between London Waterloo and Weymouth, also on every route radiating from Basingstoke, which is ridiculous: we do not redundantly describe local features at every station along the line, nor on articles about other lines. The loop is at Alton station, a mere five chains from the western ends of the platforms. There are only two places that it should be described - either Alton railway station (for preference) or Watercress Line, but not both. It certainly doesn't deserve its own standalone article. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It should stay if it goes they should look at waterloo east which is combined into waterloo but has two different pages and should all be combined into one page and it should be Waterloo.--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - if you think Waterloo East should be merged, then start a merge discussion about it. But it is not relevant to this discussion. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Any relevant info should be covered in an article on the line, anything beyond specific loop info (which is likely WP:TRIVIA) would just duplicate what the line article would say. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No to getting removed. That it is part of the largest relay interlocking outside of Network Rail and the fact that it can run with humans in the box and when in use the signal box must have a person in it. --I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Watercress Line where it's already mentioned. No reliable sources so nothing to merge.Pontificalibus 13:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Where is it mentioned and how is there no reliable source?--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's mentioned in the track diagram below the infobox. The YouTube videos are not reliable sources because the uploader is not verified, see Reliable sources/Perennial sources.Pontificalibus 15:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to say when I said delete above I am also opposing a redirect, which is only appropriate if it was a likely search term. About the only case would be looking up a picture which mentioned "Meon Valley passing loop" which didn't mention Watercress Line or Alton.  The thing is 10 miles from the River Meon source so the toponymy seems fairly obviously deriving from the defunct Meon Valley Railway and a non WP:UNDUE mention might just be appropriate.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I also oppose the redirect as it will hinder people using external search engines from finding any information about the passing loop. We will not have any information on the loop, other than (possibly) it exists, and we should not be implying otherwise. Thryduulf (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well if you say that the owners own YouTube video's are unreliable then who do you trusted?--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Try the respected railway press, such as Heritage Railway, Modern Railways, Rail The Railway Magazine, Railways Illustrated, Steam World or Today's Railways UK. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Have a read of Verifiability, basically articles should be based on "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." For further information on what "reliable" means read Reliable sources. Thryduulf (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is literally comical that we even have articles like this at all, but after a while the joke fades.  It is ludicrous to compare this utterly non-notable feature to Waterloo East, which is an important and heavily-used station in its own right.  RobinCarmody (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No to getting removed. That it is part of the largest relay interlocking outside of Network Rail and the fact that it can run with humans in the box and when in use the signal box must have a person in it.   --I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * please refrain from replying to everyone with the same sentence. Articles need multiple independent reliable sources discussing the topic in significant detail. This one doesn't. Delete. SK2242 (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unless actual reliable sources are found, this fails WP:GNG. Nothing to merge. -- Kinu t/c 20:52, 22 March 2021 (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.