Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rawtenstall bus station

: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 merge to Rawtenstall#Transport. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

=[[Rawtenstall bus station]]=

:{{la|Rawtenstall bus station}} ([{{fullurl:Rawtenstall bus station|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rawtenstall bus station}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

I can't find a single real RS for this piece of nn buscruft. Even the picture makes lack of notability startlingly apparent. Ipatrol (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I find [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22Rawtenstall+bus+station%22&cf=all 4 sources]. 3 mention crimes that occurred there, the 4th just implies the station has a terrible reputation. All are casual mentions of the station (although they convinced me to avoid the place). Delete based on this evidence, not enough sources for a proper article. --Chiliad22 (talk) 02:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

:*They refer to the same crime, that occurred there in July 2007. The fourth is only in a "user comments" section, not in the news article. —Snigbrook 10:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments shouldn't it be a mass nom ? I mean there are scores of bus shed stubs, what good is wasting time on each? NVO (talk) 12:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • In general mass noms can become trainwrecks fast and often have to be re-run as individual nominations. People either object to so many articles being nominated at once, or see one or two legitimate articles in the lot and vote to keep... and consensus becomes unreadable in a hurry. --Chiliad22 (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to Rawtenstall#Transport. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to Rawtenstall: some coverage exists[http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=site%3Awww.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk+%22rawtenstall+bus+station%22&btnG=Search&meta=] but only from one source and unless others can be found this is unlikely to be enough for a separate article. Sources are cited and content is relevant to the Rawtenstall article, so it should be merged. —Snigbrook 10:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge (as last two comments). Surely the bus station in NN in its own right. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Despite all the naysayers, I found plenty of non-trivial, in-depth coverage in reliable sources and added them to the article. Please consider the merits of the arguments and not just the !votes when closing the case. Clearly notable. Drawn Some (talk) 09:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination.
  • Merge to Rawtenstall#Transport. Despite Drawn Some's best efforts in expanding this, the fundamental problem remains - this bus station is not independently notable. The coverage is all from the local Lancashire press. Fences and windows (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to Rawtenstall#Transport. Most of the article is about replacing the bus station if all that was pruned out it could be just a mention in Rawtenstall. Really needs more coverage or heritage listing to be notable. MilborneOne (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2009 (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.