Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus route 7


 * 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) 21:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

West Midlands bus route 7

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Another non-notable bus-route. The article includes neither a claim to notability nor any thing which could be even be considered as possible evidence that this route meets WP:GNG's test of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". (The article has no references, and links only to the bus company's website and a photo website).

This article was WP:PRODded two days ago, but the PROD was contested on the grounds that "West Midlands bus routes have already been pruned down leaving the notable ones remaining". It's a pity that the editor who contested the PROD was not better informed about Notability, because the lack of evidence in the article suggests that this bus route has zero notability. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:48, 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 ) 22:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * On what bizarre grounds did that discussion "deem" this topic notable enough to deserve an article, when there is no evidence of any notability? Did the participants in that discussion even read WP:GNG?
 * We don't need assertions of notability. We need evidence of it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Followup: I found it later. It seems that some editors at WikiProject buses have drawn up a set of guidelines which completely ignores GNG: see UKBRQDRIVE. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 30 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. And I do think that trying to preempt a general discussion by multiple AFDS is not a good way to handle things--it makes discussion harder and increases the chance of arbitrary and inconsistent results. All the more so about using prods as if the deletion would really be uncontroversial, and then blaming people when they remove them as they have every right to do.  ditto about repeated asking  people here for explanations  do not have the same opinion as oneself.  I don't think calling other people's arguments bizarre really helps resolve an issue.  If people look at these articles and decide that they want to keep them, that makes a practical policy of exception to the GNG. DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 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) 03:40, 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) 03:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Basically as per DGG and Jeni's reasons plus the fact that this route was effectivly the last West Midlands route to be operated in public service by MCW Metrobuses (even though they still operate on School Contracts. Dudleybus 11:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a factoid which can mentioned in a list or in the article on MCW Metrobuses. Even if verified, it does not amount to evidence of notability unless it has led to substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) •
 * Look at BBC website under Midlands Today or National Express West Midlands Website. Dudleybus 13:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)(contribs) 12:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * [|One Source] Dudleybus 15:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Conditional keep if sources back up Dudleybus' claim and what's already in the article. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:58, 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) 16:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. Orderinchaos 17:44, 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 since information on the bus route is verifiable, and can be sourced. Dew Kane (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom & the above. For the record, I disagree with the notion put forward by DGG that somehow the GNG is a decorative gewgaw, especially when its precepts run counter to his own personal philosophy regarding criteria for content inclusion. David, I know we differ, but I usually expect to see an argument from you for retention. Significant coverage from reliable, independent sources, David! Surely we can agree on that fundamental criterion! Eusebeus (talk) 12:56, 6 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.