Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weaver 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Weaver Junction

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Weaver Junction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly fails WP:GNG - railway junctions generally do not merit their own article and article relies almost entirely on a single book. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I completely disagree on this one. Weaver Junction is absolutely key and notable on West Coast Route Modernisation, West Coast Main Line and all electrification schemes on that route. Could the references be added to and improved? Of course. But delete? Strong NO from me. And btw using the phrase “clearly” in fails WP:GNG is in my opinion a clear violation of neutral point of view. But hey, I will go with the majority. GRALISTAIR (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with GRALISTAIR. The article may be short on words and citations, but it should remain (and be improved) because the junction is one of the most important on the West Coast Main Line, in that it connects Liverpool, Merseyside, north Cheshire and south Lancashire with the rest of the country to the south. Its notability supports the opinion that the article should remain. And the article is linked to 81 other articles.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 07:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

QUOTE --- and the article is linked to 81 other articles - END QUOTE. EXACTLY - way too important. Lets improve the article. I volunteer to help GRALISTAIR (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

A cursory examination of the "what links here" page shows that almost all of those links come from articles that contain Template:St Helens and Runcorn Gap Railway. That doesn't make this article "important" and regardless that's not a valid rationale for keeping. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• Delete/Redirect to West Coast Main Line. The most I could find on this junction is [1] which isn't nearly enough to meet GNG. Existing references only mention the junction in passing or as a waypoint (construction of improvements between Weaver Junction and other locations). I've tried several different searches and can't come up with much of anything. Unless someone can find significant coverage I couldn't (which is theoretically possible as I live in the U.S. and not the U.K.) this doesn't demonstrate notability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
• Keep. I see no merit in deleting this at all. The article appears well sourced and informative. I'm no longer in Cheshire to check but the small Nantwich public library had a whole bookcase stuffed with books on Cheshire railways and the much bigger ones in Crewe/Chester would have more. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history, it appears that GRALISTAIR has greatly improved this since nomination, apparently refuting the notion that it fails to meet GNG. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Only a few of the refs have anything really to do with the junction (those being references 1, 14 and 19). Others are simply about line upgrades that happened to include the line at Weaver Junction; they are not about the junction itself. The content is largely about the West Coast Main Line with only incidental mention of the junction itself. The fact that electrification for a time ended at Weaver Junction doesn't make the junction notable. To the untrained eye it looks like the article meets GNG, but if you dig deeper you can see most of the article has little to do with its supposed subject. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

"Only a few of the refs have anything really to do with the junction (those being references 1, 14 and 19)" -- seems to me you are writing that it does, in fact, meet GNG, with multiple independent sources? Espresso Addict (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I can't access reference 1, but it's citing only one page, so I am not optimistic it's significant coverage. Reference 14, now that I've actually read it, is only a single paragraph, and is both primary and only incidentally about the junction itself - it's mostly just talking about a survey of sites of historical interest around the location of an electrical cable extension. Not significant coverage. Reference 19 is primary and only incidentally talks about the junction. So no, it does not meet GNG. We need multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources which provide significant coverage of the subject. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

• I have notified Wikiproject Cheshire. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
• Weak merge or redirect to West Coast Main Line per reasons provided by Trainsandotherthings. I think the junction could be noteworthy but not enough for a standalone article. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 20:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
• Keep for the arguments given by Espresso Addict, especially following the expansion made by GRALISTAIR. As the oldest flying junction in Britain, it would appear to me that this makes the junction sufficiently notable to in its own right to merit an article. Looking elsewhere, it appears that Trainsandotherthings is having some sort of campaign to delete articles relating to rail junctions in Northwest England, and I cannot understand the motive.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  I didn't nominate any of these articles for deletion, I am simply participating in deletion discussions related to the area of transportation. You should be ashamed of yourself for assuming bad faith. And this still fails GNG. The expansion has nothing to do with the junction, but is about the lines that happen to meet at the junction. My analysis of the sources has not been refuted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 11:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  • To Trainsandotherthings. Apologies, it wasn't you. I misread the evidence. Sorry.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

    Thank you, I realize I've been present in several of these AfDs so I can see why you'd come to that conclusion. I don't think it was good practice to nominate 19 of these at the same time, but at least for this one I am not seeing the coverage required to meet WP:GNG. I can see why an old flying junction would have a claim to notability, but we need enough sources providing significant coverage of the junction to maintain a dedicated article. Something like this, which goes into significant detail about the junction itself, not just the lines that meet at it. I haven't been able to find anything for this junction. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I notice Redrose64 has contributed to this article in the past. He has almost 250,000 edits to his credit and also an administrator. Does that carry any weight? GRALISTAIR (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

• If Weaver Junction is the oldest flying junction in Great Britain, could it be the oldest in the world? Is there evidence of an older one anywhere? I have looked for evidence and found none. There must be a railway buff somewhere who knows this. If it is the oldest, not just "old", this surely merits the retention of the article. Even as it stands at present, I see no good reason for its deletion.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Adminship and number of edits carry no weight here. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 03:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Gives credibility, not sure it affects the AfD vote. I'd much rather it be done by a seasoned editor than a sock is my point. Oaktree b (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Oldest flying junction - merits retention and is noteworthy. It was created over 16 years ago so why delete now? As above an editor who has 250,000 edits to his credit and is an administrator has made edits in the past. The article is being improved. There is just no reason to delete it. Makes no sense to me. GRALISTAIR (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Neither the age of the article, nor the fact that an admin has previously edited the article, mean anything as far as keeping or not keeping the article. What matters is WP:GNG, which this article does not meet. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Keep According to the nom, this Clearly fails WP:GNG - not in its current state it doesn't, it may have done when it was nominated. railway junctions generally do not merit their own article - that completely depends on what sources are available. article relies almost entirely on a single book - again, no longer. Black Kite (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  Can you identify even two examples of significant coverage within this article? Because I cannot find a single one. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Keep Article isn't what it was when nominated for deletion, and I fail to see how deleting this now would benefit Wikipedia. Evidently there is enough to write about here to warrant an article. Garuda3 (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Y'all are really going to make me go through the entire article to show this doesn't meet GNG, aren't you? Here we go.
• Trains bound for Liverpool from London diverge from the WCML at this junction. True, but that doesn't necessarily mean the junction is inherently significant. The source cited is no better than a database. No credit towards meeting GNG.
• Weaver Junction is the oldest flying junction in Britain. Again, true, but "The Guinness Book of Rail Facts and Feats (2nd ed.)" doesn't exactly suggest significant coverage of the junction. I can't assess "A Regional History of the Railways of Great Britain" but seeing as it's not cited anywhere else, I don't think it's at all fair to suggest this is significant coverage.
• The junction between the main line to Warrington and the north, and the direct line to Runcorn and Liverpool was originally from the date of opening in 1869, a flat junction at Birdswood. The flyover carrying the Liverpool line over the main line at Birdswood was not opened until 13 November 1881. The junction is now located some 0.75 miles (1.21 km) south of its former location and known as Weaver Junction. Its location is strategic and is considered a high importance freight corridor. I take particular issue with the last sentence. I've read every mention of the junction, and nothing in the source supports this statement. This is SYNTH at best, if not outright original research. The lines at the junction may be of importance, but notability is not inherited.
• The 1955 Modernisation Plan called for removal of steam, large scale introduction of diesels and substantial electrification of the UK railway network.[7] The north west of England was amongst the first areas to be electrified, but electrification initially only went to Liverpool and not Preston and Glasgow, and so stopped at Weaver Junction on the West Coast Main Line in the initial phase.[8] Continuing the electrification north from the junction was discussed in 1968[9] and further discussed in Parliament in February 1969.[10] When finally announced by transport minister Richard Marsh and approved by parliament in February 1970, it was costed at 30.4 million pounds.[11] The entire line was eventually electrified from Weaver Junction to Glasgow in the 1970-1974 timeframe.[12][13][14] The final completed cost was 74 million pounds.[15] There were later operational problems resulting from the scheme and higher rail usage.[16][17][18] When you read through this and look at the sources, you can clearly see Weaver Junction is only incidental to what's written here. The only mentions of the junction are that it is where electrification stopped. The first sentence has nothing to do with the junction, the second mentions the junction merely as where electrification ended, and the remainder just talks more about plans for furthering the electrification on the West Coast Main Line. There is no significant coverage of the junction itself.
• In 2009, concerns were raised and an archeological report issued in connection with a Network Rail application to the National Grid for a boost to the power supply for the WCML at Weaver Junction. It involved running an underground cable from the grid feeder at Frodsham to Weaver Junction. There's no significant coverage to be found here. This is an attempt to find as much to say about the junction within the article as possible in hopes of stopping deletion. Reading the source itself, the only mentions of Weaver Junction are brief mentions that the route of the underground cable happened to be near the junction. Nothing more. No significant coverage.
• In 2018 to 2019 the line between Weaver Junction and Wavertree was further modernised by new signaling. This is about the line, not the junction.
• An accident happened at the junction on August 6 1975 involving a collision between two freight trains. The cause was identified as insufficient braking power. Some vehicles were derailed but not the locomotives and there were no injuries. Not a significant accident, and the accident happening at the junction was wholly unrelated to anything about the junction itself. One of the trains did not have enough braking power. There is, once again, no significant coverage of the junction here.
• On 2 March 2020 a landslip occurred at Weaver Junction partially closing the WCML and required the use of rail replacement buses.[25] Disruption was seen over a few days, as the ground needed to be stabilised. This is a one-sentence mention in the source. Yet again, no significant coverage.
• In summary, the keep votes are based not on an analysis of the sources and identifying significant coverage to meet GNG, but vague assertions of "the article isn't what it was when it was nominated" and statements of general inclusionist beliefs without regard to what policy says. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not even a rough consensus seen here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment railfan here. It seems well-sourced, sources 4 and 5 talk directly about it (five is probably better than four). It's not another small, unsourced article. It has several sources from multiple books, put together to make a rather lengthy article. We've had previous articles at AfD where they've used several, small sources to put together a long article. This one is well-written (no spelling mistakes, has good citations) and is rather easy to read. Wiki isn't a specialist railfan website, but I'd say this one passes notability. Several small RS, each with a bit of information, that have been assembled into this rather lengthy article about what's essentially a point on a railway. Ok, Wiki editor here now: this is the kind of article creation we should be encouraging; thought out, well researched and very easy to read. We see too many articles here where it's essentially trying to sell us something or someone; crypto this or expert that. This is a purely historical "item" and we've basically built an article out of nothing. I'd go so far as to thank the editors that maintain it and have managed to build something. This is the power of wiki. We take small nuggets of information and create something that is rather impressive. Oaktree b (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  Keep is my !vote after the soapbox above. Oaktree b (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  we've basically built an article out of nothing That's as good of an argument for deletion as my analysis above. We don't build articles from "nothing", we build them from significant coverage in reliable sources. No amount of soapboxing (as you call it) is going to change the fact that this article lacks that. Again, since people don't seem to understand what significant coverage means, I will repeat my example from above: this is what significant coverage of a junction looks like. Not one-sentence mentions and throwing together a bunch of tangentially-related things to get an article that uses lots of words to tell us almost nothing about the subject. Where is the significant coverage of the junction itself in reliable sources? Nobody can identify any. I tried to find some myself and came up empty. And no, a one-page mention (most likely just one or two sentences, really) in "The Guinness Book of Rail Facts and Feats" does not count as significant coverage. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  You won't find any, no one writes 200 page treatments on a single railway junction. We've kept other articles in AfD where the person did research and cobbled together an article that was voted to be kept. We had a country music person come up lately and another was the history of a record label, both pieced together, that we've kept. I'd have to dig in my contribution history to find the exact ones, but we've done it before. Oaktree b (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  and the example you gave is a google site, which is even worse than the quality of the sources used here. The Weaver Junction one is of a better quality than that example is. It's basically postcards and other old photos cobbled together with some text and no sourcing. This one at least has verifiable sources in reliable publications. There have been several "junction" articles come up in AfD lately, this is the best of them, I voted to delete on a few others. This one has a decent amount of sourcing and seems to at least have sources to back up the statements made. Oaktree b (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  Did I claim it was reliable? All I said is it contains significant coverage, which it does. I was using it as an example of something that actually is more than a passing mention (which is what all the sources here are). No sources have been identified that cover Weaver Junction in detail. The keep votes here fly in the face of policy. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment if it is to be deleted, it could be merged to the Hixon rail crash article, or the West Coast Main line article, it's been mentioned more than enough times in media to be connected with the electrification of the line and the goings-on there. Oaktree b (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Keeep, for reason already given. Rossonwy (talk) 03:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment There are now three references showing that this was the first flying junction in Great Britain. This is no ordinary junction just with points, etc, but with arches and flyovers. As such, it was pioneering, if not revolutionary, in the history of railway engineering. If this sort of this were to happen today, there would be articles in journals and newspapers, and it is more than likely that there were at the time. I have not found them, but I am sure they exist. IMO the later information, interesting as it is, is secondary to the historical importance of the junction. The article should be retained for this fact alone, which can no doubt be further developed as more evidence comes to light. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Delete, the passing mentions and primary documents supplied so far do not satisfy WP:GNG. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Keep For reasons given above. G-13114 (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Are these articles going to be deleted too?

United Kingdom

• Pelaw Junction where both the Tyne and Wear Metro green line to South Hylton joins the Durham Coast Line and yellow line continues to South Shields – both diverging on the bridge itself
• Springhead Junction on the North Kent Line
• Southfleet Junction on the HS1
• Norton Bridge Junction near Stone, Staffordshire
• Hamilton Square underground station, Birkenhead, on Merseyrail
• Aynho Junction in Aynho, Northamptonshire
• Worting Junction near Basingstoke, Hampshire (the flyover is called Battledown Flyover)
• Cogload Junction near Taunton
• Weaver Junction near Dutton, Cheshire
• Shortlands Junction in south London
• Northwest of Harrow-on-the-Hill, in the north London suburbs
• Hitchin flyover, Hertfordshire.
• Werrington Junction dive-under, under construction north of Peterborough (north of Hitchin)
• Reading West Junction
• Bleach Green Viaducts & Junction, Whiteabbey, Northern Ireland

Just asking - consistency and all that good stuff? GRALISTAIR (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I understand from the discussion above that 19 articles on junctions have been nominated for deletion. Whatever are the merits of the other articles, IMO Weaver Junction should remain for the argument in my last comment. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Probably, there are a wack of them in AfD now. I can't get to all of them. So is the wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, most likely they will be. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Keep, it is a good article now. Nempnet (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
• keep The "first flying junction" claim is decent claim to notability, though I would also note that, as the junction exists now, it's not really a flying junction, if it ever was: when you get down to the actual junction, at present it's a quite conventional maze-of-crossovers split, with the flyover only serving to have the branch line approach from the opposite side from what one might expect. Mangoe (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

At the very minimum, can we please please keep it for a bit longer and not rush to delete. It is clearly being improved all the time? GRALISTAIR (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

• Further research and reading please. In further reading section there is:

• Nock, O.S. (1965). Britain's new railway: Electrification of the London-Midland main lines from Euston to Birmingham, Stoke-on-Trent, Crewe, Liverpool and Manchester. London: Ian Allan. OCLC 59003738.
• Nock, O.S. (1974). Electric Euston to Glasgow. Ian Allen. ISBN 978-0711005303.
• Wolmar, Christian (2005). On the Wrong Line: How Ideology and Incompetence Wrecked Britain's Railways (rev. ed.). London: Aurum Press. ISBN 1-85410-998-7.
• WOLMAR, CHRISTIAN (2022). BRITISH RAIL-A new History. [S.l.]: MICHAEL JOSEPH. ISBN 0-241-45620-7. OCLC 1246353492.
• Reene, Jules (2012). Weaver Junction. String Publishing. ISBN 9786138996095.

I have the two Wolmar Books and Weaver Junction is mentioned but admittedly only in passing. I have ordered the two OSNock books and when they arrive, I will read both and see what I can come up with. I am also going to order the Jules Reene book. The problem with this book is it admits it relies quite a bit on open source (but I do love FREE knowledge it is why I became an editor on Wikipedia in the first place) material etc, but the book is 136 pages long. I will be shocked if this does not have some secondary and tertiary sources, I can use to further improve the article. It also has the benefit of having the title "Weaver Junction". If someone goes to the trouble of publishing a 136 page book on the place, that surely must even a little teensy weensy bit improve notability (note I did not say prove notability - I am trying to maintain a neutral point of view !!!!)

Long story short if this article is to be deleted at least give me some more time to get further reference material to improve. GRALISTAIR (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Note to the closing admin: If the outcome is not to keep in mainspace, then moving to draft or GRALISTAIR's user space would seem warranted to allow them time to improve it further. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

So, I found your book you claim is about the junction. The very first sentence in the description: "Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online." [2] No amount of wanting the topic to be notable will make it notable unless you can demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources, and a book that's written based on Wikipedia is inherently not a reliable source and is worthless for proving notability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Please please please read again. I admit that but followed with a 136 page book surely has some secondary and tertiary sources. I don’t see why after 16 years we need to rush to delete. It sounds like you have an agenda but you are accusing me of having one. All I have asked for is time for my copy of the book to arrive and see if there are secondary and tertiary sources. The other two books I have also ordered. Surely it won’t hurt anything if an article has been on WP for 16 years to keep it a bit longer? GRALISTAIR (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

You're right, I do have an agenda. It's called Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

If the decision is to delete, is there appeals process I can go through? I will definitely do so if that is the case. GRALISTAIR (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:HEY. The article easily passes WP:SIGCOV now due to the large number of references with significant coverage added to the article.4meter4 (talk) 17:14, 5 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.