Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metrication of British transport (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Metrication of British transport[edit]

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

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

This article was created as a content fork from Metrication in the United Kingdom, but never succeeded in demonstrating that it was a notable subject in its own right. The original content comprised mainly of original research (OR) and synthesis. After the OR/synthesis was removed, the only significant content left is that about the UK implementation of the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS), which is new technology and unrelated to metrication, and could be merged into the ERTMS article, if it isn't already there. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment I find it hard to accept this nomination has been done in good faith given the history of the OP with the author of this article Martinvl. Both editors have received sanction for disruption on metrication related articles. I also note there has been a steady degradation of the article and as originally written contained a great deal of relevant and useful information. I have struck my original comment following discussion with the nominator. Nonetheless, I would still argue keep as this is a relevant fork, since information related to transportation and metrication does warrant it's own article IMHO. W C M_email 16:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wee Curry Monster: The article was bad from day 1. Detailed edit summaries explain the reasons for any removals I made, and there has been plenty of time since then to question them or add new content. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your updated comment, the specific forked topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, so fails WP:GNG. Anything on transport can adequately be accommodated in the original article, Metrication in the United Kingdom. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the rationale for an article of this nature but on reflection, per Otr500, starting over from scratch may well be a better option. As such, withdrawn my keep comment. W C M_email 14:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As things stand, I'd say delete, or redirect to Metrication in the United Kingdom per WP:EXTERNALROT.

The problem at the time I nominated this article to AFD before was that the topic did not meet WP:GNG. While there were lots of sources they were practically all primary sources (whereas WP:GNG in its definitions requires secondary sources). WP:PSTS is clear that we cannot interpret primary sources, but this article broke that rule in practically every sourced sentence.

So far as I can see none of the issues have been fundamentally resolved since then. The article still relies principally on primary sources and includes very few secondary sources. Recent efforts to remove the OR have also got rid of most of the content, and we have no way of replacing it in a policy-compliant way - because the article still fails WP:GNG.

IMO, the article is best reabsorbed into Metrication in the United Kingdom. Kahastok talk 21:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 04:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: There are definitely issues. I can see a fork to the transportation side (some agreement with User:Wee Curry Monster) but the article as written is a co-mingling of Metrication in the United Kingdom, European Rail Traffic Management System in Great Britain, and European Rail Traffic Management System without a clear direction. "Metrication in the United Kingdom" at least strikes a balance with the "Public opinion" section (controversy) and links to Road signs in the United Kingdom as well as Metrication opposition. This article title suggests something more specific, British as opposed to United Kingdom, yet the "Background" section uses "See also: Metrication in the United Kingdom", and I can't see a reason for the confusion. As written I also can't see an advantage of having this article and no clear way to fix it except blow it up and start over. Otr500 (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and previous comments. Otr500 (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Article been around for a long while now and still not escaped OR (and in a poor state). The "Background" is a redo of the main Metrication WP article. The "Road" is tiny (and captured in Metrication). The "Rail" is about "Pan-European signalling systems", which really forms the bulk of text in this article and is not per-se exclusively about Metrification. Situation unlikely to change and no evidence that this is a standalone topic from the main Metrication in the United Kingdom. At minimum a WP:NUKEIT, but I think this topic is also poorly formed, hence delete. Britishfinance (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2019 (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.