Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metrication of British transport


 * 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.  Sandstein  06:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Update: After it has been brought to my attention that the two only users (apart from the nominator) who recommended deletion, and, are now-blocked sockpuppets of a banned user, I am discounting their opinion and am changing the outcome to "keep."   Sandstein   05:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Metrication of British transport

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Despite repeated requests for secondary sources and evidence that the article passes WP:GNG on talk, and questions raised over the notability of the article over the course of months, I contend that the notability of this topic is not established.

Article contains quite a few references, but every single one is to a primary source. Google searches primarily find this article, WP mirrors, and non-independent articles written by pressure groups whose primary purpose is to campaign on the topic of metrication in general. Requests for sources have turned up a similar mix, plus a few news articles on potential metrication of road signs - but no independent secondary source for any other part of the topic. I contend that, in the absence of reliable, independent and secondary sources providing significant coverage of the subject area, the article does not pass WP:GNG. I further contend that the primary argument for notability provided on talk (that an editor has rated the article on the WP assessment/importance scales) is not evidence of notability. Editors concerned have asked for and have been given time to address these concerns, but three months on no attempt has been made to address them.

Note that there is a significant habit of inferring general trends from individual instances of usage (that is to say, if a primary source document gives a single distance in kilometres, this is taken as demonstrating that all similar documents give all distances in kilometres). This is OR, and while not a reason for deletion in and of itself, it should be taken into account when reviewing sources. Kahastok talk 11:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Speedy keep—

This article has been rated as having High Importance by: And has been rated as being of mid-importance by This article arose when the article Metrication in the United Kingdom was being overhauled and there was too much material relating to transport. This material was moved into a new article Metrication of British Transport and was supplemented by information that was moved from Road signs in the United Kingdom. Kahastok has already suggested that this article be deleted, a number of other editors entered the discussion, but the only support that Kahastok received was from an anonymous editor, believed to be a sock puppet of the banned user User:DeFacto.
 * WP:WikiProject Transport
 * WP:WikiProject UK Roads
 * WP:Wikiproject Trains

Given that this article has been rated in respect of three different Wikiprojects and the fact that this has already been discussed and the decision has been “Keep”, I request that this nomination for deletion be refused and that the refusal should take the form of a Speedy keep on ground that this is nothing more than disruption by Kahastok. Martinvl (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * So, your argument is that anyone who disagrees with you is being disruptive and that if an editor assesses an article for a Wikiproject that makes it immune from notability requirements? Kahastok talk 15:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep—I don't find the nomination statement persuasive in the least. This is a legitimate fork of its parent article per WP:SIZE. Also remember that "if the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD."  Imzadi 1979  →   15:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't believe it can be. Following the discussions we've had, and having looked myself, I do not believe that the sources are out there that would allow this article to pass WP:GNG.  I delayed because I wanted to give Martin the opportunity to demonstrate notability - to see if I've missed something crucial.  It has became apparent that I haven't.  If it is not possible to write a policy-compliant article on a subject, we shouldn't have an article on that subject.  This is the position we are in here.


 * The way it was put at the time on talk (and not, I hasten to add, by me) was that the article was there "to reduce the amount of cruft that has built up in the Metrication in the United Kingdom and Road signs in the United Kingdom". We shouldn't be in the business of farming out the cruft from articles into separate non-notable cruft articles.  If there's too much cruft in the article, the cruft should just go. Kahastok talk 15:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG isn't a policy, it's a guideline, and it's one of a few ways we measure if an article should exist. WP:SIZE is another, and based that guideline, this subtopic was spun out as its own article. In a sense, we trump the GNG sometimes. Take for instance, highway articles. The Michigan State Trunkline Highway System is notable beyond argument under WP:GNG. In order to keep the article from being too long, the tables that list each highway component of that system have separate articles, so List of Interstate Highways in Michigan, List of U.S. Highways in Michigan and List of state trunklines in Michigan are all split out. From those, another 200 or so articles are systematically split out to cover each highway because a comprehensive level of coverage mandates that we split out the specific highways on WP:SIZE concerns. Each individual highway article may not have newspaper articles, may not be proven to meet WP:GNG because of the specific coverage, or lack thereof, for a specific highway in the state. Since, we can't merge just everything into one über-article, separate articles, regardless of the tenets of GNG, are maintained.
 * When it comes to the topic of metrication, there is an article that deals with the topic as it specifically applies to the UK. Because of the level of detail, a transport-specific subarticle was created. This isn't "cruft", as the transition to metric in the UK is either still in progress, or halted midstream. The level of detail is appropriate, would overwhelm the parent if merged back intact, and therefore, in this case, I apply WP:SIZE as trumping WP:GNG, even if this subarticle lacks the sources we'd normally prefer. There isn't a policy that explicitly comes out against using primary sources, just a guideline that our "articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." (emphasis added, see the WP:PSTS section of WP:NOR) Notice that it says should not must, meaning that it doesn't prohibit, just recommend. Based on other considerations, as a service to our reader, I would not gut this article to merge it back, nor would I just delete it outright.  Imzadi 1979  →   17:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * What about WP:PSTS, when it says: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them" (emphasis original)? This entire article is based on primary sources.  It's reasonable to suggest that that doesn't mean that if we add a token secondary source for a single point we're all fine - but based on the sources we've seen so far that's the best we can ever hope for. Kahastok talk 18:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is a matter of cleaning up and revising, not deletion. The inclusion or exclusion of articles is based on notability or size guidelines when the topic doesn't violate policy. This topic is not by itself a violation of WP:NPOV (it's not a POV fork), the topic itself is not based on original research (argue all you want about the sources used, they can be replaced, but transport in the UK has metricated so you can't claim OR on the topic) and the the topic can be verified. Arguing based on PSTS won't convince me of deletion, just the need for improvement.  Imzadi 1979  →   19:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You say, "argue all you want about the sources used, they can be replaced".


 * That's precisely the point. We can't replace them with secondary sources because there simply aren't any secondary sources to replace them with (unless you have some that we've all missed?)  Replace them with other primary sources and we don't resolve the essential issue that we shouldn't have articles that are entirely based on primary sources.  There is no way in which this article can be made policy-compliant. Kahastok talk 19:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Except it is compliant, per WP:SIZE. As part of the main article, it would be compliant re: sourcing, but it can't be cut to a size that would allow it to fit in the main article without violating WP:UNDUE, so, per the guideline, it was spun out. If you're suggesting that following guideline and WP:CONSENSUS = deletion, you're setting a truly horrific precedent. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Are we really saying that it's compliant with policy, even in the context of a single article, to have long sections that are actually impossible to source through secondary or tertiary sources? Certainly, basic policies such as WP:NOR would seem to suggest exactly the opposite.  WP:PSTS doesn't just say that primary-source-only articles shouldn't exist, but that in general, "[m]aterial based purely on primary sources should be avoided."  Even in the context of a single article, this would need deleting because that's exactly what we'd have here.  That it's a separate article doesn't change that.


 * The argument here seems to be that it's perfectly within policy to create long sections of OR in articles, and then farm them out to produce OR-only articles. Surely it's obvious that that WP:NOR disallows this.


 * WP:SIZE should not be a free pass to create articles that can never meet policy requirements. Let's be clear: unless someone comes across a secret stash of secondary sources that none of us have found, there is no way in which this article can be ever be written to meet the requirements of WP:NOR.  The whole point of notability requirements is that we don't have permanent policy violations.  I see no reason why this permanent policy violation should be any different. Kahastok talk 22:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Earlier on in this thread User:Kahastok wrote: "This entire article is based on primary sources". At the start of this article he wrote "but every single one is to a primary source". This is a gross exageration of reality.  Since when were the BBC (Reference no 9) or the Daily Telegraph a prmary sources?  Would Kahastok please stick to facts.  Martinvl (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We're not actually citing the BBC though. We're citing a video of the BBC TV show Question Time, and in particular a section of that video in which the then-Transport Secretary, Alastair Darling, states that the Government were no longer planning on metricating road signs.  This is obvious to anyone who gives the point a moment's look.  If you really think that a statement made by a government minister about a change in policy in an area for which he is responsible is a secondary source, I have to express serious concern at your judgement in this matter.


 * The Telegraph source was added after the AFD was started, as is obvious from the article history. I've been clear all along that there are a few news articles out there discussing road signs.  Just nothing for the rest of the article.  We aren't even close to the level of sourcing that would be required for us to write a policy-compliant article on metrication of British transport. Kahastok talk 18:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * But the BBC article wasn't, and the fact that the Telegraph article was added shows that there is material out there, just that I have been working on other articles. Martinvl (talk)


 * I refer you to my previous answer. Kahastok talk 20:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - as pointed out above, this is a legitimate fork of Metrication in the United Kingdom per WP:SIZE. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Procedural keep. The primary issues are clearly to do with sources, content and cruft. If those are issues, we should begin by removing the offending material. If, after discussion, there's not enough information left for an article, only then will it be woth considering deletion (or, more likely, a merge back into the parent article). Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Remove. I agree that neither the subject nor most of the content of this article has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The content about road signs has recieved general cover, but is already adequately covered in the "Metrication in the United Kingdom" article. Most of the content of this article relies on the personal intepretation of a few selected primary sources by just one editor. Pother (talk) 06:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Today's featured article Battle of Schellenberg IS 42 kbytes long and had 59 citations. The article Metrication of British Transport is 21 kbytes long and has 32 citations giving it about the same citation density.  This calls into question the statement "a few selected primary sources".  I also dispute the statement that this topic is adeqately covered in "Metrication in the United Kingdom".  This article devotes 19 cm (as measured on my screen) to the topic of road transport alone while "Metrication in the United Kingdom" devotes 8 cm (measured using the same technique) to both road and rail transport. This calls into question User:Pother's use of the word "adequately". Martinvl (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Battle of Schellenberg relies entirely on secondary sources - books that cover the subject matter. I note that each cite is used for a relatively long passage of the article - something that we can often do with secondary sources.  We can't do it in this article because the vast majority can't be referenced using secondary sources - there simply aren't any.  This article instead relies on personal interpretation of primary sources, as Pother notes.


 * In terms of length, there are two obvious points. First, we might also point out the much larger picture on the transport article, which will skew Martin's results.  Second, while the road transport section may be longer, that doesn't mean that there are the sources to sustain such length.  Very little of the text can actually be cited to secondary sources.  And that of course ignores the rest of the article, where none of the text can be cited to secondary sources.  Policy tells us that we shouldn't have long portions of text that are entirely based on primary sources, and with good reason - but that's the only basis on which this article can possibly continue. Kahastok talk 18:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Remove. The topic has not demonstrably received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list" as required in WP:GNG. Scecifically:
 * None of the sources address the subject of the metrication of British Transport directly. At best, they mention just one aspect of the topic, and usually metrication of traffic signs. The vast majority of the content is pure "original research" (WP:OR) based on a personal interpretation and synthesis of primary sources such as British government agency white papers, memoires of the director of the British government metrication board, British government legislation (acts of parliament, statutory instruments and regulations), the SI body's brochure, British government traffic signs manual, British government assessments of costs of converting road signs, British government highway agency publications, Welsh government papers, European Union laws, British government driver information, British government railway safety board documents, London government transport information, British government admiralty manual, an international convention and air transport authority documents and British parliament Hansard (record of British government parliament proceedings).
 * All but three (3) of the thirty two (32) references are primary sources, so the notability requirement for secondary sources has not been met.
 * With most of the sources being British government publications of one sort or another, they do not satisfy the requirement that they be "independent of the subject".
 * It is difficult to imagine a less convincing case of notability of the topic. Ornaith (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I can see a case for that there is one secondary source here (the Telegraph source, which deals with a very narrow part of the topic, added after the AFD was started). But no more than that.


 * I'm assuming that you're counting the BBC source as not primary. It is a primary source.  What the article is actually citing there is a comment by the then-Transport Secretary, Alistair Darling, mid-way through a TV debate show.  The comment is not edited or analysed by the BBC, and is not reported or highlighted as important in any particular sense by the BBC.  We're not actually citing the BBC, we're citing Alistair Darling.  The fact that it was on the television and not on a website somewhere does not make it not a primary source.


 * I'm assuming the third is the footnote, reference 25, which is not a source at all. Kahastok talk 16:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I should have said which was which. The first is the Barnett paper (#1) used for the train speed mentioned in the picture caption. The second is the Hemenway paper (#3) and the third is the Daily Telegraph article (#17) about rejection of metric road signs. I agree with you that the BBC one (#9) is, effectively, a primary source and #25 is a non-source. Ornaith (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Not exactly convincing evidence, is it? Number 3 is 33 years old, has two pages on metrication (98 and 99) and does not mention any form of transport in those pages.  Number 1 is 20 years old and only barely mentions metrication at all.  It is only useful for a factoid whose relevance in the grand scheme of the topic as a whole (the naming of a particular kind of train) is debatable at best.  Both were prepared as government reports (hence my not having counted them).  I agree with you that it's difficult to see this as in any sense evidence of notability. Kahastok talk 17:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - looks notable to me, and is a relevant content fork. As noted, it's a high priority article for several wikiprojects, and while it is the less glamorous end of the spectrum, it's rather at the important end. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * So, the fact that an editor rated it as "high" for a WikiProject is more important than the fact that it can never meet basic policy requirements? Unless you have some evidence that it can meet those policy requirements, I don't think that's a reasonable way of judging notability.  If we can prevent even clearly non-notable articles from being deleted by rating it high importance in a WikiProject, nothing will ever get deleted. Kahastok talk 18:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Obviously a useful and well-researched article. The idea that it should be deleted seems to me lunacy. I cannot understand why some people seem to see it as their life's work to go around removing good information from Wikipedia on the most narrow, legalistic and nit-picking grounds. As for the sources, how can things like EEC regulations and government documents not be reliable sources in a matter such as this? This AfD is against all common sense. -- Alarics (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Reliable? Yes, for what they say.  But they're not reliable sources for an editor's original interpretation of them, which comprises a large proportion of this article.  There are good reasons why does not allow us to write large amounts of text based purely on primary sources, or primary-source only articles.


 * One of our core policies is that we are not a publisher of original research. It's not legalistic or nit-picking to suggest that we ought to actually follow the principles that we say we hold most important in our writing.  This article does not and can never follow those principles, because there simply aren't the secondary sources that would allow us to base a non-OR article on. Kahastok talk 19:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Extended notification

I was the only interested party who was notified when this artcile was proposed for deletion. I have now decided to let everybody who has contributed to this article (or to its Talk page) know that the article has been proposed for deletion. In accordance with Canvassing, I have notified all those who have contributed (apart from those who have already posted on this page) and only those. Moreover the notification was just that - a notification and nothing more. Martinvl (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I would note that I feel that this is likely a violation of WP:CANVASS's prohibition of votestacking, and would ask the closing admin to consider this in the close. It is unusual to announce a deletion discussion a topic to every single editor that has ever edited an article (even those whose only contributions were automated or stylistic). Kahastok talk 17:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh for crying out loud, this is why people get so annoyed at en.wp, the love of procedure over actual practicality. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Going about telling people, "Proposed deletion of article to which you have contributed", when the user's only contribution was to fix a typo and ask for a ref four months ago? There's a limit to what constitutes reasonable notification, and I think this is well over it.  (Of course, Martin didn't notify all those who participated, but that's another story). Kahastok talk 17:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If Kahastok actually read WP:CANVASS he would realise that by contacing everybody, I was not votestacking. If I missed anybody out, that was an error on my part (unless of course they had already contribited to this debate or were Bots in which case the ommission was deliberate). Maybe Kahastok would be good enough to tell me who I missed out and I will let them know. Martinvl (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2012 (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.