Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Groesfaen Colliery Platform railway station

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. There is a clear consensus to keep, with all voters voting keep and multiple making consensus and policy based arguments. (non-admin closure) Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Groesfaen Colliery Platform railway station

[edit]

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

Groesfaen Colliery Platform railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability as per WP:NBUILD, which states that "The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability" and "Buildings ... may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability".

Four unformatted "references" comprise: a ticket offered for sale (verifies existence only); a listing in a table of contents of a book offered for sale (ditto); content from a "Derelict places" site which looks to be a user-contributed unreliable source; a link to the wrong place on a database, for which the correct link https://www.railscot.co.uk/locations/G/Groesfaen_Colliery/ gives exactly zero information. This is one of many similar articles on apparently non-notable railway halts. I suggest that a redirect to Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction Railway is all that is needed. PamD 07:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. PamD 07:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. PamD 07:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It feels that way to be honest. I'm only editing this as it came up on my watch page when looking through my edits...I won't throw accusations out as PamD has been helpful in the past and advice but the last edit of blocking me felt like a hounding of sorts. But I won't accuse or start an argument but it feels like a form of hounding maybe not intended but a threat of blocking me does make me feel distressed. RailwayJG, 14:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not WP:HOUNDING at all, but pointing out basic errors that should not be introduced into the project by an editor with this amount of time served. Just sayin. -Roxy . wooF 15:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AlgaeGraphix: Please take care not to appear to accuse another editor of lying: "Despite the claim made...". At the time when I nominated the article it looked like this. Which of those unformatted, uncited, links do you consider "proper references"? I described them in my nomination. Since the nomination, but before your !vote, @Djm-leighpark: has put in an hour's work to improve the article. It now has one good source, the Beeching report, which I trust Djm to have seen in hard copy as they cite the page numbers. The other "references" remain unhelpful. I'm still not convinced this station is notable. The information given in the lead is unsourced. If anyone had got a copy of the Mitchell and Smith book to hand I'm sure they would have expanded the article using whatever information is given on page 76: we saw the table of contents earlier, which verifies the existence of the station (as does the image of a passenger ticket), but I'm not sure that any editor has actually seen the page in question. As for "hounding": the creating editor seems happy to ignore all advice about editing, requests that they format references properly, etc. They seem happy to use other editors' work unacknowledged, and to add inaccurate references. I hope I have been civil in pointing out the problematic edits I've seen. PamD 15:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD: My comment was not meant as an accusation, but merely pointing out its appearance. The tone of the messages could certainly been kinder. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict from 6 hours ago!) I sometimes fettle AfD'd articles to see whats there and about. Beeching:BRB is great for WP:V but would fail WP:RS. As it happened I had the pleasure a couple of years ago of meeting the late author of 0906520142 @ Chichester High School] who flogged me the same full price £18.95 (worth it for his signature!), explaining I'd need 3 more books to get full coverage of Chichester! Of more relevance here is the locations given here are section numbers not page numbers (per other books of that format); the likelihood is there will be a photo and commentary in the section which will constitute an RS, but I haven't seem that myself and it isn't in OL; though the oclc number will give some libraries. In the one in 50 chance its in a particular Chi bookshop I might have glance if I'm passing in the next month or two. If it is a redirect then Rshell cat of printworthy is reasonable, as are relevant categories. The Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction Railway is a bit of an animal of a network with loads of stations. I would tend to model decisions on whether to embed stations in another article on a case by case basis and sometimes also to provide for consistency with other stations on the same line. In this case my personal preference would likely be the colliery and station content was placed on the Groes-faen article with redirects for the cats; though that does cause some wikidata froth (but I'm not volunteering to do any work). In general if all that is said is opened, closed, served a particular area & co-ordinates then its probably not deserving of an article, perhaps unless all the other stations on its linestretch had articles then that might be best for consistency. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the formatting of the references isn't grounds for deletion so I'm not sure why it has been brought up. This issue has been rectified since the deletion nomination. Railway articles are often long (like Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction Railway which the nominator suggests redirecting this article to) so I think it's a good idea to keep station articles separate rather than stuff more information into the railway line articles. NemesisAT (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NemesisAT: Which of the references do you think provides adequate sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG? PamD 16:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The book source is a good start. However per Wikipedia:RAILOUTCOMES railway station articles are generally kept even if they don't pass GNG. Redirecting this article to Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction Railway and stuffing more info into that article would not be improving Wikipedia. NemesisAT (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest my reasons for sometimes amateur edits is sometimes down to me forgetting how to correctly source things. If I make a mess of an article or reference I do ask for help from other editors to correct my mistakes if I end up unable to fix them. Sorry that's just me though. I do try to follow the layout and use correct structuring tabs links cites etc but I sometimes mess up and can't find ways to fix unless asking for help. At least credit to me I do ask for help without appearing to just leave my articles. Once reviewed normally they are given improvements or work needing doing to them. I will work on my sandbox and try to hone my skills surprised I've made over 3k edits...RailwayJG, 17:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark: See 1947 OS map link in talk page. Nothing visible. PamD 04:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD That's not a low level map. My best guess (note guess) from the high level map is (1): that {{Brecon and Merthyr Railway}} is incorrect and that Groesfaen Colliery is not on a dead end branch but a loop from the dual track main line; (1a) The endpoint marked as Groesfaen Colliery on that template is in fact the tramway to a quarry and the old Wingfield Pit; and bigger guess (3): that halt platform might be in the colliery itself on that loop and not on the double track main line. A lot of guesses.... Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Andy Dingley might be a person to have a clue .... Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at Railway Passenger Stations by M.Quick and it states that that the station had opened by December 1926 closed with the line on 31st December 1962. The book Private and Untimetabled Stations by G.Croughton page 82 quotes open by 1926 closed 31 December 1962. Both books states it was unadvertised for miners (i.e. not in public timetables). Both state it was between Bargoed and Darran & Deri.Steamybrian2 (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Steamybrian2: Thanks for finding two reliable sources, that's great. Now please add them to the article, as you've got them to hand. Thanks. PamD 18:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Steamybrian2: Again thanks and a workers only halt was perhaps not totally uncommon in the area. I believe Template:Brecon and Merthyr Railway is misleading and the Groesfaen colliery was on a loop beside the main line (not on a branch as shown) which I believe to be double track and this raises the possibility the 1 platform halt could have been in the colliery loop while still satisfying between "Bargoed and Darran & Deri".(The main business of the line was shifting coal I believe, passengers likely secondary). In my opinion this is a possible route diagram issue dating back to the 2009 good faith complex contribution by Celtic Crusader back at [9], obviously outside the scope of this AfD. An ambiance of the line can be seen at [10] but it misses the subject of this AfD. I've noticed a group called the Welsh Railways Research Circle if someone wants to join or contact the archivist: Probably useful to join hat or get the sources mentioned if you are working on stations in this region. (but ensure you do not copyvio their stuff). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
I have amended the opening and closing dates as requested plus some other minor amendments. I will investigate further the position of the platform/s, whether it was on a loop or whether it had 1 or 2 platforms. I support the idea of retaining the article.Steamybrian2 (talk) 11:16, 7 June 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Groesfaen_Colliery_Platform_railway_station&oldid=1028247801"