Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus route 28


 * 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

West Midlands bus route 28

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable bus route.

The article says "Route 28 is one of the most notable bus routes, which National Express West Midlands operate in the West Midlands. As it is the only bus route which crosses Birmingham, however it dose not use the city centre" ... but that claim of being different from the other routes is not the same as a claim to notability.

There is no evidence that this route meets WP:GNG's test of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  --  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  --  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I already prodded this, as I don't believe it meets notability requirements. Aiken   &#9835;  22:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - After discussions last year at WT:UKBRQDRIVE this was one of the few West Midlands routed deemed to be notable enough to deserve an article. Other non notable routes were redirected at the time. Jeni  ( talk ) 22:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Jeni, if this article is to be kept, we don't need assertions, we need evidence of how the route meets WP:GNG. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep on its own merits. All established bus routes are major features of the local geography, and if an article can be written, it should be; whether they are better merged is a question of style. The information is encyclopedic. . If people look at these articles and decide that they want to keep them, that makes a practical policy of exception to the GNG.There are other ways of showing notability, and it is in fact contrary to the current WP:N guideline to say the the GNG is the only way. Personally, I think trying to remove establish borderline articles is a very poor use of time here, when there are so many important things like unsourced BLPs to attend to.  DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability offers another way only where there are agreed separate guidelines.
 * There is a very good practical reason for GNG: that it is an inevitable consequence of the core policy WP:V. Without it, an article can exist only as either original research or as repetition of primary source material.
 * In the case of these articles, most of the material is simply unsourced, a situation which is all too common with topics which fail GNG. This article is a good example of that: it has no footnotes, and there is no indication of whether the content is from primary sources, or some unreliable source, or is just something made up. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Oops, missed this one. Essentially per BrownHairedGirl. GNG is an important guideline and shouldn't discarded lightly. It is important for good reason.  Without significant coverage in reliable sources, it is usually impossible to have an encyclopaedic article about a subject that is properly verified.  These bus route articles are a case in point: they are littered with original research and for all we know could be totally inaccurate.  The reason they are littered with original research is because the reliable sources aren't there.  For that reason, the original research is fatal and unsalvageable.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This article fails to meet our general notability guideline. It does not assert notability and does note cite any third-party reliable sources that attest notability. MRSC (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as notability entirely uncertain and a lack of independent reliable sources significantly covering the subject. Orderinchaos 17:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable third party sources - name drops only. Karanacs (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep since information on the bus route is verifiable, and can be sourced. Dew Kane (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment While I still support this being kept, even if the majority say delete, it should be merged to a parent article, and the edit history retained, so in the future, someone can dig up what is already written in an old version, and improve upon it. Dew Kane (talk) 04:30, 4 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.