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 redirect to Sodor (fictional island)#Rail system history. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

North Western Railway (fictional) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I prodded this a while back with the usual "coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." I notice that it has been deprodded by User:WT79 who added a merge template, but did not complete this by starting a merge discussion. Anyway, all other articles on the fictional railways related to this seem to have been just redirected, not merged, primarily because just like this article here they had next to ne references and were a pure PLOT summary. As such, as suggest that this too is just deleted or redirected, with no merge needed, as there nothing to merge here, it is 100% WP:FANCRUFT, sadly enough. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: merge is not appropriate for this page. All of the sub-branches of this railway are captured on this page, not their own pages. This page is the relevant page for all the branch railways off this line. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, an important and unduplicatable page in Wikipedia's Railroad Series collection. Deletion removes a major piece of the overall topic and, if done well, then merging would overburden the target page and this is one which would have to be merged well. Best to let it exist as a stand-alone. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Notability is not inherited. It does not matter how important it's perceived in terms of the plot. When fiction lacks real world information from reliable sources, that fiction is condensed to fit the proper weight in the parent article. There appears to be nothing at all worth merging, so delete and a new redirect seems best. TTN (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This has nothing to do with inherited notability, it is a part of the entire Railway Series structure that is itself notable. As for "Nothing at all worth merging", the entire page seems valuable per content. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If you're saying it's a justifiable page split in its current state, you're saying it has inherited notability. If you think, despite its current poor state, that there are sources discussing it from a real world perspective, then you'd be asserting that it has potential for improvement. The page in its current state is all plot summary. That is never necessary, and it's pointless to merge such content without sources showing it's worth retaining. It can always be condensed to the most important parts if it lacks the backing of a real world perspective. TTN (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the article has been here since February, 2006, and has an average of 41 views a day per the last 90 day average, any major mistakes or misrepresentations would have been caught and edited out by now. It needs a few cites, but I'd think the Railroad has received many mentions in works about The Railway Series and the TV series, and those should be added and will likely show the page accuracy. But the topic is notable, the Railway represents the physical spine of the book and TV series, the tracks which the engines travel along. It is an essential part of the Railway Series universe, and thus a stand-alone subject in no need of inherited notability. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• None of that is an argument as to how this can be made to pass WP:GNG. Your argument could be made about literally any piece of fiction, and it's literally saying this inherits notability. It also fails to meet the standards of WP:WAF. TTN (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• At a minimum, given the importance of the topic to the overall subject, this falls under a common sense exception called for at the top of every guideline page. A few edits and context wording could be added, good idea, but lack of that at the moment shouldn't sink a 14-year-old topic-popular page. As for further cites, the railway is likely mentioned under one of its several alternate names in articles covering the book or television series. The alternate "Fat Conductor's Railway" seems a good topic title for a cite search. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, you can make that argument about any piece of fiction. There are still hundreds of 2005-era relic fiction articles as well. That nobody has ever cleaned this article space is a sign of stagnation, not stability. You're using an entirely subjective measure of importance on what is a minor topic. This is but one of tens of thousands of notable fictional series. Applying that standard, we'd have hundreds of thousands of such articles. TTN (talk) 23:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete though the fiction itself (and the article about it) is notable, this concept is not. There are no third party sources to improve this article to a state that would meet the WP:GNG, which requires significant non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources. A merge would in fact be an okay compromise, after a hefty clean-up to bring the unsourced/primary information into proportion, and even there, the hope would be to eventually improve the sourcing so that it adds to another article, instead of detracting with unsourced and unreliable information. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Sodor_(fictional_island)#Rail_system_history, where it is mentioned and its in-universe history detailed. Lacks the coverage to demonstrate notability, there's nothing really to merge since the lack of inline citations brings up WP:V issues, but it could be a search term. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Sodor_(fictional_island)#Rail_system_history, there is no coverage of this that would cause it to pass GNG, and the article in its current state fails WP:PLOT. There is nothing worth merging, but it is mentioned at the target. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:57, 17 September 2020 (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.