Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Midlands Bristol Road bus corridor


 * 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. There seems to be a consensus that this material should not be at this title, but it looks like further difcussion is needed on the correct arrangement for the material in terms of a rename, conversion, or merger. More discussion is need. There is not a consensus to delete. This closure should not be read as a mandate to keep the article as is.Scott Mac 20:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

West Midlands Bristol Road bus corridor

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Yet another bus route article that does not provide, and does not appear to have, any of the significant coverage in independent reliable sources required to show how WP:GNG is met. Additionally, outside Wikipedia and mirrors, there is no coverage of Bristol Road bus corridor making this grouping of routes a case of OR Nuttah (talk) 05:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - In Birmingham we have tried to move individual route articles into corridor articles to avoid lots of "little" crappy articles. Not sure what this guy is going on about with OR, but it includes bus routes which operate down the Bristol Road, no OR there at all, well no more OR than an article on xxxxx in xxxxx. User seems to do nothing but attempt to get articles deleted, possible bad faith nom? Jeni  ( talk ) 07:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, you could make a far better case than impugning the nominator (whose search for sources based upon the bad name that you chose for the article is entirely reasonable) by pointing out that your choice of name was wrong, and not represented in sources, and that the correct name, as amply documented in the West Midlands Local Transport Plan 2000 (an official public document required by the Transport Act 2000) is West Midlands Local Transport Corridor G, covering buses, cycle routes, cars, and pedestrians. Uncle G (talk) 11:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Whilst renaming to West Midlands Local Transport Corridor G may make sense, we still have the problem that only a handful of primary sources cover it, and only one (listed here) has any significant detail. What detail there is shows that is is not purely concerned with buses and covers a wider area than the Bristol Road. This grouping together of bus services is OR, there is no discussion in independent reliable sources (or primary sources) of anything remotely similar to the articles subject. Also, the prime concern remains, the article has nothing indicating how WP:GNG is met and nothing appears to be available. Nuttah (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Userify in view of comment on the Warwick Road article. I think this is about Bristol Road, Birmingham.  I therefore wonder whether this might not be better converted into an article Bristol Road, Birmingham, that road being one of the major arterial routes of the city, bus communications along it would no dount be one aspect of the article.  I can provide others.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would oppose renaming to "bus corridor" or "transport corridor". This may be an official designation in an official plan, but this is only a plan (and not necessarily implemented).  Anyway, nobody is likely to have heard of the term.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 16:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, it's just a bus route. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * 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.