Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coastliner 700


 * 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.  Sandstein  08:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Coastliner 700

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A single bus route, one of a number listed at List of bus routes in West Sussex, cannot possibly be notable in its own right. There is no reason that I can see for this article to exist. Bob Re-born (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All the references perhaps. It passes WP:BUSROUTE.  Rcsprinter  (whisper)  15:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. "A single bus route, one of a number listed at List of bus routes in West Sussex, cannot possibly be notable in its own right."? That isn't written in any policy or guideline anywhere, and is pretty much the definition of WP:JNN and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There are over 600 articles about individual bus routes on Wikipedia, several of which have survived deletion debates (e.g. Articles for deletion/London Buses route 394 (2nd nomination)), and one, The Witch Way, has GA status. So the general principle behind the nomination is demostrably wrong. As for the specific case, the sources already in the article include and, which are arguably enough to meet the requirements at WP:GNG by themselves, but if anyone's in any doubt, here are some more: ,  and a substantial write-up in Buses Magazine a few years back that I can't link to because it only exists offline. How exactly can this not possibly be notable? Alzarian16 (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per my comment above, Alzarian16's comment and the fact that if I got a DYK out of it, it can't be that not notable, or it wouldn't have got through. Nobody AfDd it then, so why should they AfD it now?  Rcsprinter  (constabulary)  15:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I have to say this nomination was badly worded Bob, but that said I understand why the article raised concerns. Unlike the nominator, I agree with Alzarian that single bus routes can be notable and Alzarian's work on The Witch Way proves that. That said the question should be "Is this single bus route notable?" and of that, I'm not convinced. Consider the sources:
 * 1) discusses Stagecoach South's fleet being upgraded but only mention in an incidental way that the  buses will be used on the 700 route. as a source it would be ideal for sourcing that upgrade but not for asserting notability of the route.
 * 2) Likewise discusses the Costal Expressway intiative, but only mentions in an incidental way that the expressway will be follow the 700 route. It also mentions that the initiative may be rolled out to the rest of the 700 route. Again it's ideal for sourcing that initiative but it doesn't assert that the 700 route is an anyway notable.
 * 3) As with the others we have an article about district versus county politics when it comes to public transport planning with an incidental mention that the 700 route was caught in the middle. Again it doesn't assert the 700 as notable.
 * 4) is the only article that asserts the 700 as a notable route - but it's an opinion piece rather than a fact based article.
 * In order to be convinced to keep - I'd like to see some evidence that Buses Magazine or some other publication actually thinks this route is notable rather than just mentioning it as an incidental fact in an article about something else. Then there have to be concerns with the article it's self - It asserts Opinion from the Argus as fact, for instance "I think you would be hard pushed to find a bus that gets quite so close to the shoreline in the whole of the UK. " becomes "It is the only bus route in the UK that stays so close to the shoreline throughout the whole route" the whole Route is sourced to an article that doesn't even mention the 700 or buses in general, the Infobox is unsourced (I even don't see any sources that assert it's length, journey time, Peak vehicle requirement,etc without using synthesis of timetables) and the better part of a paragraph (nearly everything about livery)  is sourced to an unreliable blog.  I would also need to be convinced by  those voting keep that sources exist to allow the article to move away from it's original reseach as well. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As no editors have provided evidence of notability, and inspired by comment by RCSprinter, I'll formally change this comment to a Delete. The sources as they exist do not support this article as notable in it's own right - I might have said redirect to Stagecoach in the South Downs but it's a worse article than this one. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep based on the sources found by Rcsprinter.   Th e S te ve   08:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete There is not enough reliable secondary source material to establish notability or to make a worthwhile article. If more becomes available in future the article can easily be recreated.--Charles (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Alzarian16, the subject has received significant coverage in reliable third party sources and meets the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  19:59, 8 February 2012 (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.