Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PrimeLines (Coventry)


 * 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 keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

PrimeLines (Coventry)

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

outdated, very point of viewed article 2006toyotacorrola (talk) 09:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Agree that the article as-is is in a very bad state, but per WP:NEXIST it's not the state of the sourcing that matters, but that the article can be reliably sourced. SIGCOV exists in the following sources sufficient for a GNG pass: 1 2 3. Admittedly this is pretty low-level, but the awards and later academic coverage appears to get it over the line for WP:GNG or even WP:ORG. FOARP (talk) 12:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wrt these refs; the first is from a trade publication, the second a paragraph in a local newspaper and the third is an article written by the local authority which did the work. The bus route improvements seem to be of very marginal importance, the references basically don't exist to improve the page. So I say delete. JMWt (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * JMWt - Trade publications can also be used to show notability so long as they are reliable and SIGCOV, which Transport Times appears to be (i.e., it's a WP:NEWSORG pass) - they just shouldn't be the only coverage ideally. This article appears also to have been extensive (though 80% of it is pay-walled) The Coventry Telegraph article extends beyond a paragraph, but even if it doesn't SIGCOV requires only that the subject be referred to "directly and in detail". Additionally the Coventry Telegraph had other extensive pieces on it |A203108253&v=2.1&it=r&sid=ebsco here and |A170403416&v=2.1&it=r&sid=ebsco here. I accept that one of the authors on that academic piece seems to have worked for city council - I hadn't seen the affiliations declaration on the ICE website but see it now, thanks for pointing that out. This article in Polish from the University of Gdansk is without any affiliation issues as far as I can see and includes an extensive discussion of the PrimeLines project spanning p. 124-125. This appears to be a WP:GNG and WP:ORG pass (though I'm not sure if ORG actually applies here or not). FOARP (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I would agree that it is part of the story of the history of the transport network in Coventry, I just don't see how the page can be written - especially given that the improvements have been superceded. Ok sure, we have the references we can use to show it happened. At best that's a stub. And that's being generous. JMWt (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Trade publications absolutely can demonstrate notability. Or do you think that isn't an example of significant coverage because Trains Magazine is a trade publication? The Transport Times source certainly isn't nearly as in-depth as the example I gave, but it cannot be dismissed solely because it's a trade publication. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am aware of that. I'm also aware that trade publications necessarily run stories on minor changes that have limited importance and notability. For example, no doubt the British railway trade press regularly runs stories on points changes or progress with line upgrades. That doesn't therefore mean that each points change is notable. I think that's a direct anologue here: a data point in the development in the bus routes in a British city. JMWt (talk) 08:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * JMWt - "Limited notability" is still notability. Subjective views of what is and isn't notable based on feelings as to whether something is "minor" or not have no part in this analysis. A WP:GNG pass requires only SIGCOV in more than one reliable, independent source, and we clearly have that. If you have a merge target you'd prefer then go ahead and propose that, but notability is clearly there, because even excluding the specialist press (and there is no reason to do this) we still have newspaper and academic coverage. Here's the BBC on it as well. There is coverage at regional level meeting WP:AUD requirements if you think those apply here (I'm not sure they do), and the University of Gdansk paper is international coverage.
 * Like I said, I think the state of the article is not great, but it can be improved through ordinary editing so there just isn't a DELREASON here. FOARP (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've re-written the article substantially to remove the POV and non-RS content, add RS content, and give later context (e.g., a lot of the bus lanes in Coventry being closed/suspended). Please have a look and let me know what you think. I think it at least extends beyond a mere stub. If a "bus transportation in Coventry" article existed I could understand merging to it, but AFAIK no such article exists - just articles partially covering the topic. FOARP (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep being outdated or POV problems are not valid reasons for deletion. Article has been expanded since nomination. Garuda3 (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep The reasons for nomination have been addressed, thanks to the recent improvements by FOARP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This demonstrably meets GNG, so it should be retained. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2022 (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.