- View log • ) – (
- (Find sources: )
Despite repeated requests for secondary sources and evidence that the article passes WP:GNG on talk, and questions raised over the notability of the article over the course of months, I contend that the notability of this topic is not established.
Article contains quite a few references, but every single one is to a primary source. Google searches primarily find this article, WP mirrors, and non-independent articles written by pressure groups whose primary purpose is to campaign on the topic of metrication in general. Requests for sources have turned up a similar mix, plus a few news articles on potential metrication of road signs - but no independent secondary source for any other part of the topic. I contend that, in the absence of reliable, independent and secondary sources providing significant coverage of the subject area, the article does not pass WP:GNG. I further contend that the primary argument for notability provided on talk (that an editor has rated the article on the WP assessment/importance scales) is not evidence of notability. Editors concerned have asked for and have been given time to address these concerns, but three months on no attempt has been made to address them.
Note that there is a significant habit of inferring general trends from individual instances of usage (that is to say, if a primary source document gives a single distance in kilometres, this is taken as demonstrating that all similar documents give all distances in kilometres). This is OR, and while not a reason for deletion in and of itself, it should be taken into account when reviewing sources. Kahastok talk 11:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
| This article uses material from the Wikipedia article Articles for deletion/Metrication of British transport, that was deleted or is being discussed for deletion, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.