Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neasden 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Neasden Junction

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG, relying on two sources (one 11 years old, the other 17). Railway junctions generally do not merit their own articles, so I suggest sourced content be merged into a nearby railway station article, e.g. Neasden tube station. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep, publication date of cites is irrelevant, it is whether they are reliable and back up what is stated. Rossonwy (talk) 06:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rossonwy that what matters is reliability and not date, but from that perspective we have no option other than Delete because there simply isn't substantial coverage in secondary reliable sources. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * delete No claim of notability for what on paper looks like a pretty routine junction. Even in the backwards US there are hundreds of similar two-line splits like this one, and most of them don't even have names that anyone knows about. This appears little different. Mangoe (talk) 14:32, 1 October 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.