Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cleckheaton bus station

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2021 August 5.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 keep. Local coverage is deprecated in some subject notability guidelines, and local outlets are often the source of routine coverage of things like sports matches and political candidates. However, local coverage is not generally excluded from supporting notability, and I am not aware of any SNG that limits it for bus stations, so I have no reason to discount the majority sentiment in this discussion. RL0919 (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cleckheaton bus station

[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)

No evidence of any notability, Sources in the article and online are LOCAL/PRIMARY, No in-depth coverage found, Fails SIGCOV & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 18:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I merged the article to Cleckheaton#Cleckheaton_bus_station in 2015 due to notability concerns, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are several references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why this shouldn't be merged back to Cleckheaton#Cleckheaton_bus_station. Mangoe (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping the article separate is beneficial as we keep the location info, the separate infobox that would be messy were it in Cleckheaton, and the easy navigation with the West Yorkshire bus stations navbox. Besides, I believe per my comment below that this article (expanded since restoring, and again since nomination for deletion) meets WP:GNG and thus warrants a separate article. NemesisAT (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The 2015 article which Davey2010 redirected had no sources at all, I recreated this article and significantly improved it. Article has been improved further since nomination by Eastmain. Stories in the Telegraph and Argus and YorkshireLive are both SIGCOV and focus on this bus station. The Telegraph and Argus piece in particular is in-depth. The bus station is also mentioned in this book however unfortunately I can not see the preview and do not have access to this book. There are also other mentions of the bus station on Google Books. Eastmain has added several other sources which discuss bus stations in West Yorkshire, including a piece from BBC News, a national broadcaster. WP:GNG does not exclude local sources, so I'm not sure why sources being local was mentioned in the nomination. Thanks to the wide range of coverage both for all bus stations in West Yorkshire, and this specific bus station, this article passes WP:GNG and should be kept. NemesisAT (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again all local stuff, Indeed I came across the BBC cite but it's only a 1-bit mention so hardly worth mentioning. I appreciate and thank Eastmain for trying however what they've added is no where near good enough (planning applications, inyourarea and rent websites aren't reliable sources). This still fails GNG and IMHO certainly doesn't come close to meeting it. –Davey2010^Talk 22:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG does not require national coverage. There is extensive local coverage here, plus we have the book sources I mentioned above but haven't managed to fit into the article. Additionally, while it doesn't itself establish notability, photographs like this at The Transport Library suggest the bus station has a much longer history than explained here and thus there may be scope for further expansion with older sources. NemesisAT (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No but generally speaking there should be a few national ones. If we relied purely on LOCAL coverage we'd honestly probably have 5 million more articles than we do now!. Given I merged the article in 2015 we're not really losing anything here anyway. Anyway don't wanna BLUDGEON the AFD so will cease replying. –Davey2010^Talk 22:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I don't see any problem with five million more articles. We are not a paper encyclopedia! But each to their own, I guess! I'm sure you'll agree the article was improved significantly since you redirected it, and it would be a shame to lose that additional information. NemesisAT (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references, and the article is much better now. Bus stations are often notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts however the sources you've added aren't reliable or in-depth. Not all bus stations are notable - A few over the years have been deleted or merged. –Davey2010^Talk 22:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Cleckheaton as per Davey2010. I am not convinced that this is notable enough for its own article. Coverage is not significant other than local, and some of the coverage recently added is trivial and doesn't really warrant a mention. Ajf773 (talk) 05:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current facility only dates back to 2007 but there's a much longer history from the 20th century to add and I have made a start on this expansion. The nomination's WP:BEFORE was clearly inadequate, the topic passes WP:GNG and applicable policies include WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My BEFORE was perfectly fine - Look on Google News[1] andf you will find 3 news pieces, Look on Google Books[2] and you will find 3-4 1-bit mention books. Look on the main Google page[3] and again you get 1 bit mentions or irrelevant tripe so no my BEFORE was absolutely fine.

I am fully aware that not everything will be online but by your logic we should then keep every article here on the basis of "Oh, there could be lots of coverage in newspapers" - that's a wild guess Andrew. I don't have access to paper material so I cannot say whether there is or there isn't but linking to NOTPAPER is rather quite pointless here. Again we don't keep articles based on PRESEVRE, We keep them based on notability. –Davey2010^Talk 10:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - restore redirect - local routine coverage does not meet rise to the level of passing WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources show it meets WP:GNG. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons already given above. Toviemaix (talk) 06:13, 1 August 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.