Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LocalLink 80 (BaltimoreLink)

LocalLink 80 (BaltimoreLink)

 * 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 per WP:SNOW. Relisted twice with no further discussion in three weeks. There was still some time left to add comments, however the outcome of this AFD has become almost certain to the point it is not going to change before the time closes and no need to prolong discussion further. Not relisted for a third time per WP:RELIST. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter (talk) 05:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No evidence of any notability for this bus route. The refs demonstrate that it exists but little more. Some refs discuss public reaction to recent changes to Baltimore bus routes in general. Fails against WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:GNG If there is anything of value here, it could be merged to Maryland Transit Administration  Velella  Velella Talk 05:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Maryland.  Velella  Velella Talk  05:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article requires a number of changes to be brought up to date, a process I only just started yesterday. I am drafting out some thoughts about what material to include here with respect to the notability guidelines, I started a notice on the talk page regarding this. I will note that the source mentioned is not about reactions to changes from people in Baltimore in general, it is about a proposal to cancel two routes specifically - this one and the CityLink Red, formerly known as the Number 8. (The two routes are some of the busiest in the system.) What I intend to elaborate on next regarding that is how that reaction, which had received political opposition, is what caused that proposal to be abandoned. What is unique about this route is that even after it was proposed to be cancelled and then restored, it was excluded from the "color-coded" schematic of the high frequency network despite meeting the same criteria with respect to headways and high ridership. The 2017 redesignation of the route also restored the downtown segment of it, which is currently in the process of a lot of change as Lexington Market is being redeveloped.

I also intend to get into how this bus route influenced the development of the Garrison Boulevard corridor, which was initially a less built up part of the city which increased in density during a short time as apartments were built to meet demand for the transit line.

The built environment of the surroundings was influenced further with the development of the Baltimore Metro Subway, which was planned in part based on considerations for how it would tie into the existing transit network, and the potential for the subway to alleviate traffic along the corridor. The completion of the subway in the 80s really cemented the form and role in the network the route takes today, as it both starts and terminates at subway stations but does a circuit to pick up passengers who are more distant to the service in between rather than duplicating the subway service.

Finally, the Garrison Boulevard corridor which this route follows has been one of the few candidates selected for potential street resurfacing with bus lanes and signal priority for buses, which would be a substantial departure from the road's current configuration which is very much designed in a way designed to benefit motorists rather than public transportation. This follows the completion of the "North Avenue Rising" project in November 2021 which involved a major redevelopment of another road to function as a more effective conduit for the Gold route. The 80 / Garrison Blvd was selected for its combination of high ridership and the current ways in which the structure of the road inhibits its reliability.

Merging this article to Maryland Transit Administration would not make much sense as it predates the Maryland Transit Administration by decades and was purchased by the MTA in the 1960s when the cohort of private bus companies at the time had become unprofitable.

The Wikipedia is not a directory guideline does not apply here because directories are not concerned with the history, influence, or impact of bus routes. --Middle river exports (talk) 06:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  16:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - No significant coverage in secondary sources. That's the bare minimum for general notability.  Sounder Bruce  06:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There have been a number of articles from secondary sources about this route. I am just in the process of reading the ones from The Sun, which I have started listing on the talk page. I then intend to continue to add material from other publications, such as Motor Coach Age, and from studies and/or reports which concern this route. I also have a couple of books which should have sections on this to supplement, though as I understand it not every single source has to be only about the topic. Also please see my comment above regarding this. The number of secondary sources on the page was 2 fewer before today, and by the time I am done editing there will be several. The number of sources on the page is reflective of the starting point, not an absence of sources. Best --Middle river exports (talk) 07:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as pure WP:DIRECTORY.-- Mike 🗩 14:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:DIRECTORY doesn't really apply here, as directories typically don't include the history or impact of the subject. --Middle river exports (talk) 01:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep article improved since nomination by Middle river exports. WP:NOTDIRECTORY is a broad guideline and nom hasn't specified what part they feel this article falls foul of. I do not see how this article violated any of the bullets in NOTDIRECTORY. NemesisAT (talk) 09:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.