Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MetroBus (Bristol)

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The result was Withdrawn/Keep. - Despite my objections it seems the community deems this notable, Thanks The Whispering Wind for your major improvements to the article. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MetroBus (Bristol)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proposed bus scheme, All imho WP:crystal & WP:TOOSOON, Fails GNG, I also don't object to redirecting/merging –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will be operational in summer of 2016! Delete. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. This can be deleted if it remains unchanged from its current state, as it is not sourced with little content, but many proposed and future projects have articles (the Silver Line in Washington DC has had an article since 2006 but only opened this year). If this can be adequately sourced and expanded, it should be kept. Or, it could be merged with a more appropriate article(a general article on transportation in Bristol, or Bristol itself) 331dot (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Buses in Bristol for now. Can always be split off again if and when it grows enough to warrant it but I can't see the need for a separate article at the moment. NewsBank and Google searches show quite a bit of coverage in local news sources (mainly the Bristol Post and BBC News Online for Bristol) but not more widely. Qwfp (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's inconceivable to me that a BRT project in the UK that gets as far as this one appears to be at, wouldn't already have been subject to lots of in-depth coverage already. And a cursory Google search reveals that yes, it's already well past the stage where even a complete cancellation wouldn't justify not having an article. Unless Wikipedia only deals with things that actually happen? Which I'm pretty sure is not the case. At least Bristol has a buses article though, lucky old Bristol - over in Kent they've yet to even learn what a bus is, according to Wikipedia. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 10:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed my reply since it's somewhat off-topic. –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

over in Kent they've yet to even learn what a bus is is quite honestly the most dumbest comment I've heard yet!,

On the Kent side we have Arriva Kent & Sussex, Arriva Kent Thameside, The Kings Ferry, Metrobus, Stagecoach South East and Southdown PSV So I would say we are aware of what a fucking bus is!,

You should probably read up on the policies here before !voting based on its history & whatnot. –Davey2010 • (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And since when were you the personification of Kent on Wikipedia? You've gone quite bonkers old chap. Take a deep breath. And relax.... Notforlackofeffort (talk) 11:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The way I see it, WP:CRYSTAL doesn't quite apply to this article. The bus company has already filed a massive cache of documents and plans with the Bristol City Council [1], including a map of one of the proposed routes [2]. These are definite proposals as opposed to "unverifiable speculation". Additionally, the bus routes have been highly controversial; environmentalists have complained that MetroBus construction would destroy valuable land. I'd argue that this article [3] from BBC Gloucestershire is at least a regional source and meets WP:AUD of the notability requirements for organizations. Given these sources and others mentioned above, I'd say the level of coverage is sufficient for a stand-alone article. Altamel (talk) 03:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imho I would say Crystal is still correct but we'll agree to disagree on that, The service doesn't even start till 2016 so I believe it's way too soon for it to warrant an article. –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I expanded the article and added some refs—would anyone care to have a second look? Altamel (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:CRYSTAL says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". Once operational, this scheme will be notable and the fact that central government approval has been given to one route and that the planning applications for all three routes have first stage approval is sufficient for us to assume implementation. Deletion, only to recreate is inefficient, and most significantly, there is sufficient material in reliable sources to make a worthwhile and informative stub. Finally, even if the scheme does eventually get cancelled, sufficient reliable source coverage has probably been generated anyway to meet WP:GNG. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.