Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pudsey bus station


 * 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 merge to Pudsey.  Sandstein  14:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Pudsey bus station

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Only coverage is from West Leeds Dispatch, Yorkshire Evening Post, and LeedsLive. Local news by itself is not good enough for WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: There are two flaws in the nomination. One there is no reference to local papers being unacceptable on the page containing the tag WP:GNG. Secondly, this is a regional paper not a local paper. Read the AFD help, notability is a matter of protecting us from hoaxes, bias and non- verifiable articles. If the building could be verified but has not been yet, we err on the side of WP:AGF. Google to see. ClemRutter (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)  Here are reasons against deleting. When to not use deletion process?
 * Articles that are in bad shape – these can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing.@
 * Articles we are not interested in – some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept.
 * Articles on topics you wish didn't exist for personal belief reasons – Wikipedia contains information on all topics, not just those which any person or group agrees with.
 * I was tempted to do a quick google to see if other references were easy to find- this should have been done before the AfD proposal. Dozens. Award winning formwork this is an architecture article too. AFD help- ClemRutter (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I already did a BEFORE search. I have no idea why you decided to give me a list of reasons not to nominate something at AfD when I clearly didn’t nominate for those reasons. Also WP:LOCALINT which claims local news is good enough by itself for notability is a failed proposal. Here is the Yorkshire Evening Post article for reference. It’s 3 sentences. Not even significant coverage. So 2 run of the mill local news articles plus that award thing is not good enough. Notability is also something that keeps out stuff barely anyone is interested in and/or has had little relevance or attention. SK2242 (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Problem with a before search is that it only covers what Google wants you to see. So whichever news organisations it has black listed (or vice versa) don't appear. Only a fraction of reliable sources can be found online, the vast majority, particularly pre-2000, are only in printed form.
 * Per another recent AfD you initated, you appeared to refuse to accept notable notable industry sources such as Buses and Bus & Coach Professional stating I don’t seeany evidence of significant coverage, Are you expecting a double page feature article in a national newspapeer to demonstrate notability? That's not likely to happen. Local newspapers are fine to report events that are never going to be significant enough to make the national press, WP:LOCALINT states Local sources are considered to be reliable sources. In much the same way that industry publications are fine to be used. Lilporchy (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Two comments on WP:LOCALINT:
 * A failed proposal is one where there was no consensus to adopt it. That doesn't necessarily mean there was consensus for the opposite.
 * I think you're misreading the proposal in any case. Pudsey bus station would come under this proposal's definition of a "local interest".  It then says it is likely that a lot of local interests have received coverage in more than one of these [local] sources. This would seemingly meet the general notability guideline—"seemingly" as distinct from "actually".  Subsequently, it goes on to say In order for a local interest to be notable, it must, to a very high standard, have multiple reliable sources independent from the subject that provide in-depth, non-trivial coverage pertaining to the subject itself (emphasis mine).  That is, it's attempting to impose a higher bar for inclusion than WP:GNG.  So it seems the failed proposal is concurring with your argument here. (Looking at the talk page, it seems most objections to the proposal were to the idea of this higher bar for inclusion, or were procedural objections based on the wording.)  YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what a 'BEFORE search' actually is. I use a full DuckDuckGo search and then Yahoo and occasional Google, 'BEFORE search' has passed me by, it does seem to give a very poor set of results, and certainly not fit for purpose. ClemRutter (talk) 12:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It means a search in accordance with WP:BEFORE, which is the part of the main WP:Articles for deletion page suggesting checks you should do before making a nomination. It's not a special type of search.  :-) YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:LOCALINT tried to set a lower bar than GNG as it still had the same requirements but said its fine if theres no national interest. I’d also like a list of the sources found that makes this meet GNG. Thanks, SK2242 (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I didn't find sources beyond those already found: I think those are a borderline pass of WP:GNG but I'm not sure, which is why I haven't !voted. Could you point to which part of WP:GNG says that sources have to be of national interest?  I can't find it.  Thanks! YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification of the jargon - good to know that Google aren't been threatened with closure yet. I search on the term and 'Yorkshire Post' and 'Telegraph and Argus'- here is one you might not have found. BBC Leeds. Bus station designs do have a wide interest in local government circles, and we have many articles and many categories. To me there is interest in the town planning, architecture, the financing, the operators and the routes. Most of these articles have been written by knowledgeable bus and rail buffs and are scantily referenced. ClemRutter (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Merge to Pudsey as alternative to deletion (switched !vote): Clearly fails WP:GNG and WPNBUILD. Article does not have sources showing WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from WP:IS WP:RS. WP:BEFORE showed nothing that contains SIGCOV. Mentions in routine run of the mill news stories do not demonstrate notability. Article makes no claim towards and there are no sources showing this meets NBUILD for historic, social, economic, or architectural importance.
 * Source evaluation table


 * The sources do not demonstrate notability, they simply demonstrate it existed. Good nomination from  // Timothy :: t | c | a   02:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for popping by with your flawed opinion about WP:N. The table is nice and the POVs amusing. It is a good idea to write a few articles similar to the subject- and to read the thread. You will have noticed that you are checking for the existence of references not that they have been used in the article. Keep smiling and discuss this on WP:WikiProject Buses and WP:WikiProject Architecture where it is more likely to be seen. ClemRutter (talk) 10:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The closer and other participants will look at the sources and see there is no SIGCOV from IS RS. Your petty insults and snide comments only reflect badly on you.  // Timothy :: t | c | a  11:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge to Pudsey as alternative to deletion. The renovation of the bus station should of created more SIGCOV (maybe in an offline newspaper?), if these can be found it could make it a borderline GNG pass. Jumpytoo Talk 01:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to per .  Re-evaluating my previous opinion (which I can't see that I ever made a bolded !vote, but if I did please strike it; thanks) I think this is, from the sources we've found, a borderline GNG fail; I support merging without prejudice to recreation if more sources are found.  <b style="color:#049">YorkshireLad</b>  ✿  <b style="color:#052">(talk)</b> 12:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.