Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ipswich Rapid Transit

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 redirect to First Norfolk & Suffolk. Randykitty (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ipswich Rapid Transit

Ipswich Rapid Transit (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)

Non-notable guided busway, no evidence the name "Ipswich Rapid Transit" has ever been used. CoolSkittle (talk) 09:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 09:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 09:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 09:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it's poorly named. A search for Ipswich guided busway brings up hits. I think it's a sourceable article - first guided busway in the UK, and I've seen a lot of mentions if not significant coverage, including from parliament. SportingFlyer T·C 10:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The exact string comes up as a gscholar snippet in "Bus Rapid Transit: Worldwide History of Development, Key Systems and Policy Issues". I'll request it at the library to see if it has substantial content. SpinningSpark 03:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't have in-depth content that would meet GNG, but if the article is kept, it can be used as a source to verify some basic facts. On page 248: 0.5 km route and first launched in 1994. It also gives some stuff not currently in the article: there were 739 passenger per day in 2010, and if I am reading the table correctly, there would seem to be only one bus. That last contradicts the article which uses the plural, but how many buses do you need for a 500m run? Also gets a mention in this book, but again, not in-depth. SpinningSpark 12:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Unsourced. Snippets and sources with no in-depth coverage don't advance notability for GNG or NORG. Keeping the article so it "can be used as a source to verify some basic facts", Would be hard to imagine if there are no reliable sources to verify what might be called "facts". Otr500 (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Otr500: I meant the source I cited could be used to verify some basic fact, not the article. And I didn't !vote for keep because of that. I didn't !vote at all. SpinningSpark 18:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I couldn't find anything that supports WP:N. Also the article is completely unsourced which is a massive WP:V fail. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to First Norfolk & Suffolk per WP:ATD. ––Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Redirect to First Norfolk & Suffolk per WP:ATD. Over ten years on WP and not a single reference. Probably should be a delete as per nomination but happy as a Redirect also to preserve the text in case anybody has enough interest (unlikely) to make a proper article on this. Britishfinance (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2019 (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.