Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strensham services (2nd nomination)

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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strensham services[edit]

This article has previously been deleted after a previous AfD discussion. I say that this article has no value to the encyclopedia, since the subject of the article does not have sufficient notability to warrant inclusion. Richard Cavell (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete criteria G4 --neon white talk 01:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donington Park services might also be of interest, even if this particular station was not part of the group nomination at the time. --Amalthea^Talk 11:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not share the opinion of the AfD I quoted that motorway service stations are inherently notable, comparable with train stations. It fails WP:NOTE lacking significant coverage. Probably candidate for G4 since it was previously deleted on grounds of notability, too. --Amalthea^Talk 11:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Surely this has been discussed many times and we have a standard policy. Even the smallest UK motorway service station receives far more visitors per day than many railway stations and railway stations are deemed automatically notable. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not aware of any policy that states that a building is automatically notable if it receives a certain number of people. If I am wrong, please could someone link me to a place which states such a policy. I have not been able to determine that the services are given non-trivial coverage by "multiple, independent reliable sources" . As a result, I believe the article does not meet WP:N, and I believe it should be deleted because of this. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2008 (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.