Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carleton Level Crossing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. JamesTeterenko 16:29, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carleton Level Crossing

It seems to be accepted that every UK railway station, however small, qualifies for an article. But level crossings do not qualify. There is nothing notable about this one. -- RHaworth 13:58:34, 2005-08-10 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep It doesn't explicitly violate any wikipedia policy, and has attracted some interest over its short life. I don't see what we gain by deleting it. --Apyule 15:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence as to why this level crossing is notable. Sliggy 15:29, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No claim to notability. Level crossingcruft. Sdedeo 16:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, nice verifiable piece of infrastructure. Failing that merge with the line or something. Kappa 16:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, I am distinctly unconvinced that this article is notable and keeping it will create bad precedent. -D. Wu 16:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. DJ Clayworth 16:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per D. Wu. --Tim Pope 17:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep level crossings are notable and not very common Towel401 17:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete level-crossings notable? Uh, no. -Splash 19:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but put the photos in an article about the line or something. Meelar (talk) 19:09, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Both photos are already used in two other places. -- RHaworth 01:38:03, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
  • Delete impressively, incredibly, non-notable CDC (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm getting worried that in five years we'll be debating whether or not individual telephone poles are notable "it's a nice, verifiable part of the energy grid". --Scimitar parley 19:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete I sometimes have nightmares about that, Scimitar Soltak 19:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Scimitar DES (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Scimitar. What's next, List of Junctions on the B5405 road? Sabine's Sunbird 22:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable.-Ashley Pomeroy 22:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What next, road intersections? --Carnildo 22:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Locally this would be notable (I speak from experience, I used to live in Poulton-le-Fylde) as it is, as the article says, the only crossing in the area. Indeed, I recognised it purely from the name, despute the fact that there must be other Carletons with (notional) crossings of one sort or another. Keep as searchable geographic stub. Scope for new article addressing the history and current state of the hamlet of Carleton itself (but not by me, as I now live in London) --Simon Cursitor 07:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Utterly, utterly awful idea. Delete. Proto t c 10:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unless the control tower in the photos are unique to British railroad crossings (never seen one like that in the States!), then it's just another railroad crossing. Gates come down, lights flash, bells ring, train passes. I love trains and I've written railroad-related articles but this doesn't ring the (crossing) bell. - Lucky 6.9 23:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Lucky 6.9. DS1953 04:53, August 12, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.