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.
Clean-up templates do not seem to be having any effect on the author of this article, it remains a rambling, unsourced collection of travel information and photos. Neither is there any evidence, apart from Wikipedia mirrors, of the existence of "Bus corridors" in the West Midlands. They seem to be an invention of the author to justify bundling a variety of routes that go in the same direction. Fails
WP:GNG and definitely falls into
WP:NOT.
I am also nominating the following related pages because they fail
WP:GNG and fall into
WP:NOT for the same reasons as above:
Keep all I have found multiple reliable sources for a transportation. It appears to pass GNG. The issue is sourcing many of the articles remain unsourced which needs to be added and improved.
Valoemtalkcontrib18:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)reply
With all respect have you read the noms rationale as he states "Neither is there any evidence, apart from Wikipedia mirrors, of the existence of "Bus corridors" in the West Midlands"?.....
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→22:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)reply
They sort of exist, but only in the West Midlands Local Transport Plan:
[1]. Not so much bus corridors as more general transport corridors, and certainly no sign that they've been picked up on outside of local government.
Keep all I did not see any item in
WP:NOT of which this falls afoul. I also do not agree that this does not satisfy
WP:GNG, given that the routes are referred to in government documents and on bus timetable sites, as well as occasionally in other media. I think, in fact, that each route could have a case for its own article under GNG, but that this is a more informative way of structuring the information.
Fun with aluminum (
talk)
21:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete all per the above and past precedents that bus routes are not generally notable enough for individual articles like these. Imzadi 1979→01:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete all per nom. Buscruft. If there is no reliable secondary sourcing that these "corridors" exist this is verging on a hoax.--
Charles (
talk)
22:40, 16 May 2014 (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.
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.
Clean-up templates do not seem to be having any effect on the author of this article, it remains a rambling, unsourced collection of travel information and photos. Neither is there any evidence, apart from Wikipedia mirrors, of the existence of "Bus corridors" in the West Midlands. They seem to be an invention of the author to justify bundling a variety of routes that go in the same direction. Fails
WP:GNG and definitely falls into
WP:NOT.
I am also nominating the following related pages because they fail
WP:GNG and fall into
WP:NOT for the same reasons as above:
Keep all I have found multiple reliable sources for a transportation. It appears to pass GNG. The issue is sourcing many of the articles remain unsourced which needs to be added and improved.
Valoemtalkcontrib18:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)reply
With all respect have you read the noms rationale as he states "Neither is there any evidence, apart from Wikipedia mirrors, of the existence of "Bus corridors" in the West Midlands"?.....
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→22:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)reply
They sort of exist, but only in the West Midlands Local Transport Plan:
[1]. Not so much bus corridors as more general transport corridors, and certainly no sign that they've been picked up on outside of local government.
Keep all I did not see any item in
WP:NOT of which this falls afoul. I also do not agree that this does not satisfy
WP:GNG, given that the routes are referred to in government documents and on bus timetable sites, as well as occasionally in other media. I think, in fact, that each route could have a case for its own article under GNG, but that this is a more informative way of structuring the information.
Fun with aluminum (
talk)
21:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete all per the above and past precedents that bus routes are not generally notable enough for individual articles like these. Imzadi 1979→01:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete all per nom. Buscruft. If there is no reliable secondary sourcing that these "corridors" exist this is verging on a hoax.--
Charles (
talk)
22:40, 16 May 2014 (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.