Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norfolk Orbital Railway

Add links
Source: 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. ST47 (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolk Orbital Railway

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

Norfolk Orbital Railway (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)

the article doesn't seem to have enough reliable sources. Hasn't been updated since 2014 and no movement on the so called proposal. Plus new housing in Fakeham on the former cutting. This is speculation and no movement in last five years. It should be deleted or merged with Norfolk North Railway and also Mid Norfolk Railway. Its speculation and not concrete evidence. Apart from one purchase of land near Fakenham. Its speculation. It should be merged or deleted - Signed Joshuaisthefalco 15:28. 17th November 2019 JoshuaIsTheFalco (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaIsTheFalco (talk • contribs) 15:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy KEEP - This article is sourced and relates to an up-to-date project in the County of Norfolk, England. The editor proposing the deletion made a false edit on the page, which was reverted, and additional 2019 news sources were added. Google brings up 217,000 results for "Norfolk Orbital Railway", with 856 news results. As stated on the talk page for the article in reply to the proponents claims, there are enough sources for the scale of the project and associated page. It has been updated, and includes news sources from 2019. His claims relating to the new housing are spurious as they don't relate to any section of line involved in this scheme - and were reverted as such. The project is independent of both the Mid-Norfolk Railway and North Norfolk Railway, so should not be merged with either (although the plans do involve both schemes, so are mentioned in passing on each). It displays concrete evidence, owns property and has a section of this property open to the public (as a permissive access) - therefore, it is not speculation. Neith-Nabu (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is speculation. If it has taken 10 years to even get it off the ground which your sources seem to claim is alive but also not. It's not reliable. It like saying the Oxford to Cambridge Line will reopen but nothing has happened since its announcement. These things normally apply for the short term and there is no time when it could reopen. Wikipedia is not a speculation or theoretical database. It's not your opinion or mine. Its fact, nothing planned to happen. The page repeats itself as speculation and no government sources backing it. Just a council and groups. It's not a reliable source nor the newspapers. Yes there are search results for this line. But nothing about its reopening anytime soon just. Keeping the vision alive. It needs to be rewritten, merged or deleted and restarted from scratch. Nothing is solid on here but land sales and possible routes. - Joshuaisthefalco — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaIsTheFalco (talk • contribs) 21:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are they false? The facts are there is no future plans to carry this on. It is obvious by the lack of movement. I will withdraw my speedy deletion as long as the following sentences are changed:
Extended content – Content proposal

Before:

Is a community railway project in Norfolk, England, to investigate and with others put in place a cohesive public transport structure for all who live and work in Norfolk as well as visitors.

After:

Is a rail project in Norfolk, England, which is proposed to look at bringing a cohesive public transport structure for North and Mid Norfolk.

Before:

The heritage lines affected are Mid-Norfolk Railway and the North Norfolk Railway. The route would include stations on both of these lines.

After:

The heritage lines involved are the Mid-Norfolk Railway and North Norfolk Railway. This will be a joint project with these two companies.

Before:

In January 2019, Campaign for Better Transport released a report identifying the line which was listed as Priority 2 for reopening. Priority 2 is for those lines which require further development or a change in circumstances (such as housing developments).

After

Deleted sentence above.

Before:

The company does not plan to own rolling stock. The track would be operated by existing companies.

After:

Deleted sentence above.

Before:

The line would form an 83 mile line through the county of Norfolk, with two likely reversal points. The route is outlined as follows:

Network Rail section (30 miles)

The first section of line that the project intends to use runs from Norwich to Sheringham, and is part of the National Rail network, marketed as the "Bittern Line". Leaving Norwich, trains call at

North Norfolk Railway (5.5 miles)

Network Rail services terminate at a simple halt in Sheringham, with the next section of line, from Sheringham to Holt, being owned and operated as the North Norfolk Railway. Since March 2010 the two lines have been connected by a "periodic use" level crossing.

Holt to Melton Constable section (5.5 miles)

The Norfolk Orbital project owns 50 yards of former railway formation beyond the limits of the North Norfolk Railway. This is isolated from the railway by a removed road bridge and the new station's coach park, but an isolated section of track, along with rolling stock, is intended to be laid here for publicity purposes. The route through Holt, including the site of the original station, has been used for the single carriageway Holt bypass, with new housing developments being approved since the launch of the project. Beyond Holt the formation largely remains, although some sections have been lost to agriculture and housing developments.

  • Holt - original station lost under road scheme, but new station planned.
Melton Constable to Fakenham section (9 miles)

The station site at Melton Constable has been lost to an industrial estate, the platform site now the town's telephone exchange. The station throat, formerly a deep cutting, has been filled and restored to agriculture.

After reversing at Melton, the trackbed is mostly intact as far as Thursford, where it has been lost under a road for a short distance. Close to Fakenham, the formation was affected by quarrying and is now a track through Pensthorpe wildfowl preserve, with some sections having been lost to planned lakes forming the core of the wildfowl park and the route of the line passing metres from the visitor buildings at the attraction. A new, diversionary route would be needed to avoid this location.

Fakenham to County School (6.5 miles)

A new station would be needed at Fakenham, with trains likely to need to reverse direction at this point. The line would join the former Great Eastern branch from Fakenham to County School, which also forms part of the future route of the Mid-Norfolk Railway. It is mostly intact, although the line is blocked at Great Ryburgh by an extension to the town's maltings. The trackbed from County School to Fakenham is in the last stages of protection; this also includes a short M&GNJR spur to the Fakenham gas works where a station could be provided.

Mid-Norfolk Railway (17.5 miles)

The line from County School to Dereham retains most of its track and is owned by the MNR. The line from Dereham to North Elmham has been restored to operational standards and carries the heritage services of the MNR.

Network Rail section (9.5 miles)

The final section of line planned for use as part of this project is part of the National Rail line between Ely and Norwich. On arrival at Norwich the train would have completed a loop around the county of Norfolk, hence the "orbital" aspect of the project name.

After:

The line would form an 83 mile line through the county of Norfolk, with two likely reversal points. The route is outlined as follows:

The first section of line that the project intends to use runs from Norwich to Sheringham, and is part of the National Rail network, marketed as the "Bittern Line".

North Norfolk Railway (5.5 miles)

Network Rail services terminate at a simple halt in Sheringham, with the next section of line, from Sheringham to Holt, being owned and operated as the North Norfolk Railway. Since March 2010 the two lines have been connected by a "periodic use" level crossing.

Holt to Melton Constable section (5.5 miles)

The Norfolk Orbital project owns 50 yards of former railway formation beyond the limits of the North Norfolk Railway. This is isolated from the railway by a removed road bridge and the new station's coach park, but an isolated section of track, along with rolling stock, is intended to be laid here for publicity purposes. The route through Holt, including the site of the original station, has been used for the single carriageway Holt bypass, with new housing developments being approved since the launch of the project. Beyond Holt the formation largely remains, although some sections have been lost to agriculture and housing developments.

Melton Constable to Fakenham section (9 miles)

The station site at Melton Constable has been lost to an industrial estate, the platform site now the town's telephone exchange. The station throat, formerly a deep cutting, has been filled and restored to agriculture.

After reversing at Melton, the trackbed is mostly intact as far as Thursford, where it has been lost under a road for a short distance. Close to Fakenham, the formation was affected by quarrying and is now a track through Pensthorpe wildfowl preserve, with some sections having been lost to planned lakes forming the core of the wildfowl park and the route of the line passing metres from the visitor buildings at the attraction. A new, diversionary route would be needed to avoid this location.

Fakenham to County School (6.5 miles)

A new station would be needed at Fakenham, with trains likely to need to reverse direction at this point. The line would join the former Great Eastern branch from Fakenham to County School, which also forms part of the future route of the Mid-Norfolk Railway. It is mostly intact, although the line is blocked at Great Ryburgh by an extension to the town's maltings. The trackbed from County School to Fakenham is in the last stages of protection; this also includes a short M&GNJR spur to the Fakenham gas works where a station could be provided.

Mid-Norfolk Railway (17.5 miles)

The line from County School to Dereham retains most of its track and is owned by the MNR. The line from Dereham to North Elmham has been restored to operational standards and carries the heritage services of the MNR.

Network Rail section (9.5 miles)

The final section of line planned for use as part of this project is part of the National Rail line between Ely and Norwich. On arrival at Norwich the train would have completed a loop around the county of Norfolk, hence the "orbital" aspect of the project name.

If you make these changes and agree to them. I will withdraw the deletion nomination. The stations are already listed, this is just repeating it and two sentences have no sources. I will offer this compromise if performed. If not, I will keep the nomination for merging and/or deletion. Signed: JoshuaistheFalco, 22:16, 17th November 2019 <sml class="autosigned">— Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaIsTheFalco (talk • contribs) 22:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The deletion nominator shows they care and are seeking to improve Wikipedia. But the deal proposed establishes that there is essentially a content/editing dispute, not a real issue of notability. Trying to make a deal is commendable, but it is not for AFD. Remand to article talk page, perhaps an RFC to take forward. I do hope “other side” can be gracious and see their way to accepting/taking seriously the suggested edits. —Doncram (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not a process for editors to attempt to blackmail others into accepting their edits. There are reasons why I would not accept these changes - but this is not where that discussion takes place. Whilst I am impressed in your ability to assume good faith, this post (coupled to the direct comments on the user's page) seems to suggest that this is a disruptive editing tactic rather than an actual AfD proposal or a desire to improve Wikipedia. Neith-Nabu (talk) 06:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, i would not call anything here "blackmail", nothing is comparable to what that is in real life. The proposal above sure is specific about wording changes desired, believed to be improvements. This is obviously seeking to improve Wikipedia, though I can understand the approach can rub some others the wrong way. Trying to make a deal between editors can be a good thing. I have been involved in doing that a couple times in the past. In part I learned that making a deal between editors can be difficult, but can be worthwhile. Since a deal between some editors obviously is not legally binding and it does not include non-involved editors it certainly can be hard to enforce some intended outcome, that needs to be understood. But talking through stuff, trying to make a deal, can accomplish a lot, can bring about a lot of understanding for example. Please don't be so harsh. --Doncram (talk) 11:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Made the proposed changes. If reverted without reason or valid. Will keep the deletion or merge nomination active. I made these to both tidy up and remove repetitive names and sentences. Plus removed the rolling stock tab as no references and the stations listed as they are on the route map at the info box. Also removed the BfT January 2019 Proposal Scheme 2 for housing as it is not a valid resource. And also removed the affected heritage lines to a joint one as it would not go ahead if they were going to be affected by it. These changes now help it to sound more better and not full of speculation wording. If Neith-Nabu has any issue with these changes. Then please leave a reply on here and my talk page. I will therefore remove my nomination if he agrees to these constructive changes. No blackmail as I have been apparently accused of. This is not the case but that it needed to be rewritten or merged. Deleted was because it was full of speculation and no solid dates/time frame of when the first part of the project would commence. --JoshuaIsTheFalco (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defenition of Blackmail:
the action, treated as a criminal offence, of demanding payment or another benefit from someone in return for not revealing compromising or damaging information about them.
"they were acquitted of charges of blackmail"
demand money or another benefit from (someone) in return for not revealing compromising or damaging information about them.
"they use this fact to blackmail him, trying to force him to vote for their candidate"
Defenition of Constructive and Compromise:
Constructive criticism is the process of offering valid and well-reasoned opinions about the work of others, usually involving both positive and negative comments, in a friendly manner rather than an oppositional one.
an agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.
"eventually they reached a compromise"
Learn the difference. Anyway considering you are not up for agreeing to this then I will let Doncram look at the edit Norfolk Orbital Railway. JoshuaIsTheFalco (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You: "Let me have your way or I'll keep this AfD going..."
You are the one attempting to use AfD to force people to let you have your way. You want to walk like a duck and quack like a duck, be prepared to be called out as a duck. You want to stick to editing like a normal editor, discussing reasonably on the talk pages of articles and accepting that you will not be allowed to post misleading and factually-incorrect information on an article, come back to me. Otherwise, I have made my comment on this AfD and see no point in engaging with you further on this page. Neith-Nabu (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your the one being rubbed the wrong way and taking it out of context. What you see as fact I see as speculation. What you see of me is speculation and you fact. I am not here to debate blackmail with you. Just that the page is full of speculation. Apart from land sales and two or three sources saying it is on track. There is speculation from the name of the stations which will reopen on the line (No mention of former stations) to the After 36 years the Bittern line was reconnected to the North Norfolk Railway via an "occasional use" link between the Network Rail station and the North Norfolk Railway's tracks.
Although the length of the link is only a few yards the agreement represents a step towards a permanent link and new interchange station. This link is initially available for occasional use (such as charter trains from Norwich and/or London) and for delivery of rolling stock. (Proof)? No sources or references on this tab. --User:JoshuaIsTheFalco
Extended content – unexplained
begin passage inserted by JoshuaIsTheFalco
Following this Line Status tab:
The line would form an 83 mile line through the county of Norfolk, with two likely reversal points. The route is outlined as follows:
The first section of line that the project intends to use runs from Norwich to Sheringham, and is part of the National Rail network, marketed as the "Bittern Line".
North Norfolk Railway (5.5 miles)
Network Rail services terminate at a simple halt in Sheringham, with the next section of line, from Sheringham to Holt, being owned and operated as the North Norfolk Railway. Since March 2010 the two lines have been connected by a "periodic use" level crossing.
Holt to Melton Constable section (5.5 miles)
The Norfolk Orbital project owns 50 yards of former railway formation beyond the limits of the North Norfolk Railway. This is isolated from the railway by a removed road bridge and the new station's coach park, but an isolated section of track, along with rolling stock, is intended to be laid here for publicity purposes. The route through Holt, including the site of the original station, has been used for the single carriageway Holt bypass, with new housing developments being approved since the launch of the project. Beyond Holt the formation largely remains, although some sections have been lost to agriculture and housing developments.
Melton Constable to Fakenham section (9 miles)
The station site at Melton Constable has been lost to an industrial estate, the platform site now the town's telephone exchange. The station throat, formerly a deep cutting, has been filled and restored to agriculture.
After reversing at Melton, the trackbed is mostly intact as far as Thursford, where it has been lost under a road for a short distance. Close to Fakenham, the formation was affected by quarrying and is now a track through Pensthorpe wildfowl preserve, with some sections having been lost to planned lakes forming the core of the wildfowl park and the route of the line passing metres from the visitor buildings at the attraction. A new, diversionary route would be needed to avoid this location.
Fakenham to County School (6.5 miles)
A new station would be needed at Fakenham, with trains likely to need to reverse direction at this point. The line would join the former Great Eastern branch from Fakenham to County School, which also forms part of the future route of the Mid-Norfolk Railway. It is mostly intact, although the line is blocked at Great Ryburgh by an extension to the town's maltings. The trackbed from County School to Fakenham is in the last stages of protection; this also includes a short M&GNJR spur to the Fakenham gas works where a station could be provided.
Mid-Norfolk Railway (17.5 miles)
The line from County School to Dereham retains most of its track and is owned by the MNR. The line from Dereham to North Elmham has been restored to operational standards and carries the heritage services of the MNR.
Network Rail section (9.5 miles)
The final section of line planned for use as part of this project is part of the National Rail line between Ely and Norwich. On arrival at Norwich the train would have completed a loop around the county of Norfolk, hence the "orbital" aspect of the project name.
end passage inserted by JoshuaIsTheFalco
Not one source or reference to back these claims? Sources non existent? Did not want to add them? JoshuaIsTheFalco (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To User:JoshuaIsTheFalco, I for one don't follow your point. Your edit left this AFD page kind of messed up. I just tried formatting your stuff above, by indenting a long passage and labelling it as having been inserted by you. Could you please revisit this and improve the labelling/formatting, perhaps? Is this a passage that you are recommending be inserted, or a passage that you criticize, or what? Would you mind if the above passage is collapsed? It is not something you are saying yourself, it must be a quote or a proposal or something. --Doncram (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I collapsed the passage, labelling it for now as "Extended content – unexplained". Okay by me if someone who understands what it is would like to relabel it. --Doncram (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy KEEP. To User:Doncram the edits proposed by User:JoshuaIsTheFalco seem to constitute original research and are therefore outwith the remit of Wikipedia. Furthermore, the project would still merit a page in it's own right even if it were defunct due to it being a project of notable staus. I suggest therefore that the proposed edits are maliscious original research and therefore I support User:Neith-Nabu in suggesting Speedy KEEP S ellinson (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • S ellinson there is nothing original research about it. Wikipedia does not deal in speculation. It needs supporting facts. Not this is proposed or this could happen when. Original research implies my own wording. Far from it. It needed the update and removal of unsourced, thats right UNSOURCED speculation. It can stay i will withdraw my speedy deletion. But it needed looking at in detail and seemed so full of speculation with new stations mentioned and no citations to reference an established source. So my so called original research was actually citation searching, you cannot accuse me of that original research on a basis of opinionated wording and not factual. Please learn the difference next time you make an accusation. (talk) - JoshuaIsTheFalco (talk) 22:02 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • This is AfD, not Speedy Delete. Those are different processes. You attempt to AfD this page is not getting any consensus, so whether you choose to end it or leave it I am fairly sure that the result will be the same. IN fact, I move that time has been given for a consensus to have been reached, and that this AfD could now be wound up.
There is a difference between proposals and speculation. Active project proposals belong on Wikipedia pages about those projects. Your personal opinions in relation to this project, or the East-West Rail Link that you also mention, do not. Some of your recent edits have, however, been helpful and have pushed the improvement of the page in question. For that, I thank you. Neith-Nabu (talk) 12:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is true, a consensus has been reached, the page looks better than before. To clarify those so called my personal opinions are not of my own but from what I have been told by numerous editors and admin on many rail and place pages. Wiki does not deal in proposals or speculation. They need to be solid and clarify future movement of proposals ie a date or specific timeframe. Those with in the near future mean anytime and since 2014 was a while ago. I felt this needed to be resolved. I do apologize for a AfD proposal on this but from what I was reading and there being next to no citations or sources on the planned route and stations. It made it sound like a page of speculation. Since those little removals and tweaks. It is more informative like South Staffordshire Line and the Wellington to Craven Arms Railway pages. Those have specific speculations with multiple sources to confirm them and council plans. The Norfolk Orbital Railway page lacked any of them other then the plans mentioned for the railway. It was missing government backing sources other than the priority source. Councils and the Department for Transport/Government are different sources. The councils need the government to back proposals but so far only the council and two heritage railways back the scheme. I feel this can now close for further discussions. I know withdraw my AfD. - JoshuaIsTheFalco (talk) 21:11 24 November 2019 (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 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/Norfolk_Orbital_Railway&oldid=928239295"