Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cowes park and ride

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 Cowes. Zad68 02:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cowes park and ride

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

Declined PROD. I fail to see how an 85 space car park qualifies for an article. A local scheme with no wider notability. Fails WP:GNG, WPNOTTRAVEL at the least. Charles (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to either Cowes or Southern Vectis. Delete - On second thoughts this can't be merged with bugger all!, As Editor5807 has kindly pointed out!. -Davey2010T ~~20:30~~, 21:55 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep - I fail to see what relevance it has to Cattle? Which section were you thinking of merging it to in that article? As for Southern Vectis, they may run services through the site, but they don't own it. Incorporating the information into the main SV article would overload it. Editor5807^speak 20:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bad typo clearly!. Davey2010T 21:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. Maybe it meets notability guidelines, but the references are all "Retrieved 26 December 2008" or earlier, suggesting lack of maintenance (a problem where information may become outdated quickly). There's a sentence in Transport on the Isle of Wight, maybe more could be added? Peter James (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cowes (and possibly Transport on the Isle of Wight considering Cowes is a 'gateway' to the island). The article rests on two news articles in the IOW County Press in the first week of the scheme's launch. Much of the remainder of the WP article is non-notable travel information - bus routes, timetables and bus fares (which isn't the purpose of Wikipedia). Sionk (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Park and ride lots are not notable unless it is part of a rail station. Dough 48 72 01:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of a park and ride next to a railway. In fact most stations I know have utterly draconian parking restrictions next to them - try parking outside the front of Euston Station and see how long it takes you to get clamped and towed away. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think examples such as Bristol Parkway were intended, but they are of course very different and I cannot see the car park being notable independently of the station myself. --AJHingston (talk) 10:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete P&R schemes are two-a-penny in the UK, and this one is small fry compared to many, eg English tourist cities. I see nothing to establish notability. --AJHingston (talk) 10:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a summary to Cowes, delinking the bus routes, if mention is retained in the target. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cowes, adding a brief bit of information about the park and ride from the sources. Some park and rides might be notable (for instance, St Catherine's Park and Ride in Winchester was the former site of the A33 Winchester Bypass where the battle of Twyford Down occurred in the early 1990s, so it might be possible to spin an article out of it) but this one isn't. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it was bigger and had more routes orienting from it, I'd say merge, but it really is just a glorified car park. aycliffe^talk 14:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not notable in and of itself and doesn't provide sufficient useful information that a merge makes much sense. Even the references are either generally simply news reporting or mention the park and ride in passing. Obesity in the United States may be a notable article, but a mention that I enjoy bacon does not justify its own article, even if a reference appears in a reliable source on an actual notable subject. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2013 (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.