Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus route 33

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 no consensus. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

West Midlands bus route 33

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

Non-notable bus route.

There is no evidence that this route meets WP:GNG's test of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject": the article has no footnotes, and only two external links: one to the bus company's website, and one to a picture site. Neither is relevant to WP:GNG.

This article was PRODded a few days ago, but the proposed deletion was contested on the grounds that "West Midlands bus routes have already been pruned down leaving the notable ones remaining". If this is one of the more notable routes, I dread to think how obscure the others are, but I see no evidence of notability. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After discussions last year at WT:UKBRQDRIVE this was one of the few West Midlands routed deemed to be notable enough to deserve an article. Other non notable routes were redirected at the time. Jeni ^(talk) 22:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jeni, if this article is to be kept, we don't need assertions, we need evidence of how the route meets WP:GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on its own merits. All established bus routes are major features of the local geography, and if an article can be written, it should be; whether they are better merged is a question of style. The information is encyclopedic. If people look at these articles and decide that they want to keep them, that makes a practical policy of exception to the GNG. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability offers another way only where there are agreed separate guidelines.

There is a very good practical reason for GNG: that it is an inevitable consequence of the core policy WP:V. Without it, an article can exist only as either original research or as repetition of primary source material.

In the case of these articles, most of the material is simply unsourced, a situation which is all too common with topics which fail GNG. This article is a good example of that: it has no footnotes, and there is no indication of whether the content is from primary sources, or some unreliable source, or is just something made up.

And if someone can look at unsourced article and say "keep because I like it", why do we we bother with notability guidelines at all? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Oops, missed this one. Essentially per BrownHairedGirl. GNG is an important guideline and shouldn't discarded lightly. It is important for good reason. Without significant coverage in reliable sources, it is usually impossible to have an encyclopaedic article about a subject that is properly verified. These bus route articles are a case in point: they are littered with original research and for all we know could be totally inaccurate. The reason they are littered with original research is because the reliable sources aren't there. For that reason, the original research is fatal and unsalvageable.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This bus route was one of the first "Showcase" routes (i.e. The forerunner to the current "Partnership" routes) between an Operator, this case being Travel West Midlands and a Transport Authority, this being The West Midlands Passenger Transport Authority/Centro. Press articles should be able to be found as it is Note-worthy on Wikipedia. They are not only original research but notible because of press releases from the companies involved and also the fact that litriture is available. Me, Dudleybus^{Myself and I} 11:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "Showcase Route" thing would be great if it had received any sort of coverage, but I can't find a single source to back it up. What's left if we remove that is nowhere near notable. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails to meet our general notability guideline. It does not assert notability, having branding is not the same as notability, and does note cite any third-party reliable sources that attest notability. MRSC (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable. Orderinchaos 17:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable third party sources - name drops only. Karanacs (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since information on the bus route is verifiable, and can be sourced. Dew Kane (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is simply nothing to suggest notability. Aiken ♫ 15:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I still support this being kept, even if the majority say delete, it should be merged to a parent article, and the edit history retained, so in the future, someone can dig up what is already written in an old version, and improve upon it. Dew Kane (talk) 04:30, 4 April 2010 (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.