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.
✗plicit 23:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Relies entirely on 1 source, 128 years old. Clearly fails
WP:GNG, along with its sister page at the
north junction. Rly junctions generally do not merit their own articles.
Mattdaviesfsic (
talk) 18:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)reply
delete as this gets more hits under its current name, but either way there are very few, mostly completist listings and name drops for photos of taken at this fairly accessible site. As a junction, it's unremarkable, and there's no claim to significance made in the article or anywhere else I could find.
Mangoe (
talk) 14:10, 1 October 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.