Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harrogate bus route 36


 * 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. Weak consensus that it passes GNG. If there is another deletion discussion concerning this article then the nominator should put a strong deletion rationale up. (non-admin closure)  J 947  03:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Harrogate bus route 36

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable bus route, fails WP:NOTGUIDE Nördic   Nightfury  09:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  Nördic   Nightfury  09:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Nördic   Nightfury  09:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "WP:NOTGUIDE" is too vague; could you be more specific? Peter James (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - Seems notable to me, as it has its own route branded buses and also on the basis that there are some secondary sources covering the topic, and more can be found, however its not even mentioned in the BBC source (source 3). Class 455  ( talk |stand clear of the doors!)  22:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That reference was originally to a BBC news programme, not to the website; it was changed by another editor to a link that doesn't mention it. There is some coverage online from the BBC but not from 2008: "Commuters lured by luxury bus" (27 October 2003), around the same time as source 1. Peter James (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. The only significant secondary source cited, the BBC, does not mention the route. Fails WP:GNG.Charles (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep some more cites needed, but secondary coverage from multiple sources has resulted in an article that is more than just a copy of a timetable. And with no listing of frequencies, hours of operation, fares etc anyone trying to plan a journey using the article would not find enough info here, making WP:NOTGUIDE a moot point. Strato6 (talk) 08:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * delete coverage is all routine. LibStar (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just as relevant as other bus routes that were kept after discussion. Some more information on the history would be appreciated, though. --Schlosser67 (talk) 08:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a reason for deletion, either. Anyway, the line has been discussed as an example for a successful modal shift towards public transport in several learned articles, also outside the UK, which IMHO makes it rather notable. I have included a few references in the article. --Schlosser67 (talk) 08:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete No inherent notability and no sign passes WP:GNG or any applicable SNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * See my second comment above and note that reliable secondary sources exist. --Schlosser67 (talk) 08:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What secondary sources? Icannot find any.Charles (talk) 08:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Pilsner, Beale, White, Ten Percent Club ... all proper books and professional journal articles. Google Scholar may find more, but these show already notability far beyond the region. --Schlosser67 (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Pilsner is not a learned journal article, it is an industry trend piece. Beale is unverifiable as listed. White is indeed a journal article, but is one sentence is a very broad survey of rural transportation in Europe. Ten Percent Club appears to combine the detriments of Pilsner and Beale as both an industry trend piece (judging by the title), and unverifiable as listed.  Notability asks more of us as editors than throwing in a bunch of Google Scholar results.  Perhaps oddly enough, I am changing my !vote to Keep.  Not because of these poor sources, but because of the BBC and Harrogate Advertiser articles, which are enough to pass WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Yet another non-notable run of the mill bus route. Ajf773 (talk) 07:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep – passes WP:GNG pretty clearly as far as I can tell. Laurdecl talk 04:09, 5 March 2017 (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.