Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Track access controller


 * 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   keep. Wizardman 13:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Track access controller

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article describes a role or job level at a specific company (London Underground). It is unsourced, and does not seem verifiable in this detail. As long as this company-internal role is unknown to the wider public (which the few Google hits do not seem to indicate), the topic fails WP:N. Tagged with notability since June 07; PROD was contested. B. Wolterding (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * keep I don't see why the "wider public" has anything to do with notability. It's a  position in a field of   interest in which we have rather comprehensive coverage. DGG (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What I was referring to regarding the "wider public" is some independent coverage, in the mainstream press or similar, which seems to be missing here; or at least I currently can't attribute the article content to sources of this kind. --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep there are a handful of sources which could help source/explain the role this job serves within the London Underground. According to GScholar, it's also mentioned in this book, although I don't have access to it. I don't think it's a particularly notable job, nor do I think we have clear guidelines on what constitutes a notable job. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 23:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 07:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   -- Iain99Balderdash and piffle 09:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.   -- Iain99Balderdash and piffle 09:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WikiProjects notified: WikiProject London Transport and WikiProject UK Railways. Slambo (Speak) 11:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge The main 'sin' is the lack of sources to back-up the content. Whether the article should remain stand-alone or be merged-in with one of the other London Underground articles is another matter. Either way, the content is worth retaining. EdJogg (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I strongly object to articles being put up for deletion WITHOUT prior discussion on the talk page. The only sin this article has committed is that it has failed to add any references. At the very least the content should be merged ... which again should have been discussed on the talk page.Olana North (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment While I suspect that sources could be found to write a decent article on the subject, a lot of the current content is very poor indeed. The sins go well beyond a simple lack of sources: there's a great deal of unattributed opinion, much of which seems designed to puff up the importance of the job. "The post of Track Access Controller is highly sought after...", "If you are ever stranded in the morning due to "overrunning of engineering work" you can be sure that a Track Access Controller somewhere is working hard to get the problem resolved for you", "Between them they have a wealth and breadth of knowledge that is the envy of other London Underground departments" and numerous other examples. Merging this sort of material is a bad idea... if it is kept it would need to be severely pruned if not cleaned up quickly. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 13:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * [Comment] OK, so some of the wording is poor, granted, it is unlinked and barely categorised, but the 'main' sin remains the lack of sources. A little rewording could easily change this from unsourced POV to unsourced content (:o)): "T~ A~ C~ positions attract large numbers of applicants", "A T~A~C~ is responsible for managing engineering over-runs and minimising consequent delays.", "a T~A~C~ requires a knowledge of the entire Underground network", etc. However much pruning might be required, merging is greatly preferable to deleting, and the unpruned version gives other editors greater scope for filling in the detail appropriately. EdJogg (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I read the article twice, cleaned up what I could, and I still can't tell exactly what a Track access controller is. There were major WP:PEACOCK issues and I fixed some of them.  It reads like a recruitment posting, not an encyclopedia article.  If reliable sources can be found, this article can be recreated later, but as is, if I were to paraphrase the article, i would only be able to come up with "they work with the London Underground safety stuff, they much be really really really really really really really good." -Verdatum (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not tfl.gov.uk. Stifle (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Slash and Merge The text looks like a copyvio of a job posting, but the bare facts are mergeable with LU if true though. MickMacNee (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * keep but give it a decent wikify and copyedit. --AlisonW (talk) 09:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Scrape clean and start anew. We have a grand slam here - an orphaned, deadend, unreferenced article that, despite all the work performed on it since the opening of the AfD, still reads like a magazine article or the beginning of an editorial/opinion article. B.Wind (talk) 03:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - this is surely a subject worth having an article about, although perhaps this article is not it right now. I'd like to see it improved, and there doesn't seem to be much interest in doing so, but the peacock wording seems largely gone...let's give it a chance. Frank  |  talk  11:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per Travellingcari. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2008 (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.