Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamilton Street Railway Route 5 Delaware

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. RL0919 (talk) 12:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton Street Railway Route 5 Delaware

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article about a bus route, does not meet WP:GNG. I would have redirected it to the main page, however the note the author left at the top of the page makes it clear the redirect would be reverted. // Timothy :: talk 12:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 12:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 12:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Hamilton Street Railway per nom. No WP:SIGCOV, unsurprisingly for what is a generic bus route. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 13:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, delete per everyone else. Unlikely search term, and this content probably needs to go. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 00:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Delete What the BLEEP is this? A bolded notice not to delete with smileys and no inline citations. It looks like a draft of an article that somehow made it to the "live" version of wikipedia. Should be deleted or merged to the HSR article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Oaktree b, check out the formatting in the new version :) // Timothy :: talk 20:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - TimothyBlue This is a joke right? I have no words. Oaktree b (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - What this page really needs is animated gifs. // Timothy :: talk 03:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, better suited for CPTDB wiki than here Jumpytoo Talk 18:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete an awful-looking article about a blatantly non-notable subject shouldn’t even require a discussion. I would’ve just PRODed this one. Dronebogus (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I would even endorse an IAR speedy delete. Awful layout from top to bottom, clear as crystal GNG failure. SK2242 (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, borderline speedy delete because the article is just that crap. I don't even need a rationale, just look at the article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero notability, would need a WP:TNT anyway. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire. We do not indiscriminately keep articles about every individual surface (bus or streetcar) transit route in every city, this is not referenced to any evidence of the reliable source coverage about it in media that it would take to establish its topic as a special case of greater notability than the norm, and I don't even want to guess at where the creator ever got the idea that Wikipedia articles are ever supposed to look like this. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oppose a speedy because AFD is not cleanup but bus routes typically aren't notable and there's no indication that this is an exception. Smartyllama (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2021 (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.