Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Midlands Warwick 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 Userfy -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

West Midlands Warwick Road bus Corridor[edit]

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

Contested prod. 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 Warwick Road bus Corridor making this naming 'work around' a case of OR Nuttah (talk) 05:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 Warwick 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) 07:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 F, covering buses, cycle routes, cars, and pedestrians. Uncle G (talk) 11:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Errr, I haven't actually ever edited this article other than to remove the PROD, how can my choice of name be wrong? Please do expand on your reasoning as it's baffling me a little bit there, if I'm honest! Jeni ^(talk) 13:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The world knows and sees who you are and what you do. ☺
      I suggest a quick visit to User talk:Dudleybus, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I wouldn't quite say the whole world! My moves around that time were cleaning up the diabolical naming system that was implemented in the West Midlands where we had such titles as National Express West Midlands routes 405 & 405E and Diamond Bus route 401E. If the Bristol Road article were to be titled in that way we'd have National Express West Midlands routes 61, 63, X62, X64, First Midland Red routes 143 and 144 and former Diamond Bus route 64 - So much more logical to say "buses which run along the Bristol Road" aka West Midlands Bristol Road bus corridor. Jeni ^(talk) 15:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whilst renaming to West Midlands Local Transport Corridor F 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 much wider area than the Warwick 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 seems available. Nuttah (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NOTEI am proposing to move it to my userspace to improve the article to wiki standards. Please avoid deleting it. [[User:Dudleybus]] [[User talk:Dudleybus]] (talk) 08:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userify in view of the last comment. My view is that articles on bus routes have little merit, but I susopect that I am now in a minority. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to have any significant notability. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2010 (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.