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.
Clearly fails
WP:GNG - signalling section unsourced, and electrification likely covered in much greater detail elsewhere. Rly junctions generally do not need their own articles.
Mattdaviesfsic (
talk)
18:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete I cannot find any evidence of independent notability. The only referenced material is about electrification of lines that happen to meet at the junction, not about the junction itself.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
00:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. What would be a possible Merge target? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!22:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Weak delete So compare this to the discussion for Weaver Junction article; it has few sources and much more prose written without sources to back it up. It has more photos than the Weaver article does, but less to prove where the info was gotten. Most of it appears as original research; there is likely an article that can be cobbled together from multiple sources as the Weaver article has been. This is not there yet.
Oaktree b (
talk)
00:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)reply
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.