Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bristol/Bath to South Coast Study

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 Bristol. Merge to the Bristol and Bath articles. MBisanz ^talk 20:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Bristol/Bath to South Coast Study

Bristol/Bath to South Coast Study (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Although citations are included in this stub article, no claims are made about its significance or the effect that this report (one of thousands of similar reports each year) has had. — Rod ^talk 09:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Anything of significance should appear in summary form (with proper citations) in the relevant articles (Bath and Bristol in this case). Only if the summary becomes too large, should a separate article be written. As RodW says, the article does not say anything about the contents of the report, so its summary in the main articles woudl be empty. Martinvl (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment (article creator) A (short) pre-nomination exchange exists on the article's talk page. Editors might find this of some interest. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment A search targeting just one local newspaper turns up a number of references to this study. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (Some hits are just reader comments, but the others count as WP:RS) -- Trevj (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Keep (article creator) per WP:BEFORE, WP:GNG.pre-report Hansard refUWE Air Quality Research GroupStatement to Planning, Transportation, & Sustainability Overview & Scrutiny Panel(by Frank Cashmore of the Joint Strategic Planning and Transportation Unit, now apparently superseded by the West of England Partnership)SWRA reportPassenger Focus Dec 2006 briefing docBath Literary and Scientific Institution event(could be seen as PR, but still noted by the Institution)Wiltshire LTP 2006/07summary of residents' views on Bath's transportarticle with reference to the Batheaston P&Rproposed HGV restrictionsCBT commentFOBRA commentswwiltshirelibdemsHoC Transport in the South West 2010 report

This report has been noted and is still being referred to in 2012. As I said on the talk page, I'm almost certain this will have been referred to in the specialist press. I've not checked local press outside the Bristol/Bath area but it's possibly been covered elsewhere too.

The UWE report amounts to significant coverage (although limited to specific areas). I don't have the time to devote to improving the article now, and will be away for most of next week. Much as I'll probably be criticised for referring to WP:IAR, in this case (and in the absence of further sources being presented during the course of this discussion) it may be appropriate: there doesn't appear to be an obvious merge candidate, with the scope of the report being wider than Transport in Bristol and Government Office for the South WestGovernment Office for the South West being a redirect (where it may be WP:UNDUE to include it anyway). -- Trevj (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Keep until it can be merged somewhere This was a document prepaared in connection with the formulation of govenrment policy. It was no doubt an aspect of the regionla transport plan. I would have expected it to have been commissioned by other copunty councils than just Bath & NE Somerset. The Plan is clearly an obsolete one, only available from web-archive sources. I have located a link to it and substituted that in the page for a deadlink. The document is clearly a significant one in the historical development of the Transport network in a sub-region. However, the parent to this would need to be an article on road transport policy in the region. If we do not have such an article, we need to keep this until we do. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks very much for tracking down that link. AFAIK it also mentions rail transport. But that's probably just in the context of modal shift from road. -- Trevj (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Selective merge to Bristol and Bath articles. Evidence of a significant amount of coverage in independent, reliable sources is lacking, and I haven't been able to find any additional sources that would counter this impression. Government reports and government commentary on government studies do not constitute independent coverage, in my view. Outside of government circles, there's only a smattering of coverage, mostly residents voicing their opinions on planning and policy. This, too, does not rise to the level of significant coverage in my view. I tend to agree with Martinvl. The most practical course would be to merge selectively into the Bristol and Bath articles, taking care that the merge does not give undue weight to the report. A sentence or two or three may be warranted, depending on the context. As a separate article, though, we are not yet at WP:GNG. I don't think it's necessary to invoke WP:IAR here because this material has a suitable home elsewhere, and need not be wholly removed from the encyclopedia under the guidelines. --Batard0 (talk) 06:11, 23 October 2012 (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.