Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Premier 993 (National Express West Midlands) (2nd nomination)


 * 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   delete. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Premier 993 (National Express West Midlands)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )


 * I am also nominating the following related pages because the issues involved are almost identical:
 * (see also Articles for deletion/National Express West Midlands Premier 934)

This is a non-notable bus route in the West Midlands (county) of England. It clearly fails WP:GNG, because there are no references at all, and the only external links are to primary sources, in the form of bus company sites.

The article's lead does contain which might be intended as an assertion of notability: that it is the second highest numbered bus route in the West Midlands area, but that's really a piece of trivia barely worthy of mention.

The articles were PRODed last year by an editor who later redirected the article instead. That redirect was promptly reverted, and the article was taken to AFD (see Articles for deletion/Premier 993 (National Express West Midlands)).

I do not understand why the AFD was closed as "no consensus", because no valid arguments were offered for keeping it. The two "keep" arguments were "Could potentially be useful" (an invalid reason per WP:USEFUL), and "This is one of these routes, like the 997, which is a Partnership route with WMPTE (Centro)". I see no evidence that the latter is any reason to keep an article.

The AFD followed a discussion at WT:UKBRQDRIVE, where it was one of a number of similar articles which two editors wanted to keep on grounds such as "important regular service", "important CENTRO partnership bus route" and "route formed from shortening of major route", all of which seem to be at best marginal assertions of notability, and certainly not evidence of notability.

I have brought this article back to AFD because it appears not to have improved in the last year, and because I do not think it is appropriate to leave notability to be assessed solely by members of a WikiProject sub-group.

Given the history of this article being restored when redirected, it should be deleted to prevent any such restoration without a proper consensus. After deletion, the title may of course be re-created as a redirect if editors genuinely believe that this cumbersome title is a likely search term. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  --  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  --  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to a generic "West Midlands Bus Partnerships" article. Combining the partnership-makes-it-notable routes into one properly sourced article would be the only way to justify any form of inclusion. Otherwise Delete per nom. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per when I first nominated it. No useful redirect here, it doesn't even follow the naming convention. Jeni  ( talk ) 16:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as an NN bus route, unless there is some measn of protecting the redirect so as to prevent it being reverted to an article Isave by an admin. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per well-reasoned and clear nom. Orderinchaos 17:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable third party sources - name drops only. Karanacs (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Is a well-written article on a bus route, for which all information can be verifiable. Provides important details, including its history, like such an article should. May be lacking sources now, but these can be provided by the right expert. Dew Kane (talk) 04:21, 7 April 2010 (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.