Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norton Canes services (2nd nomination)

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

I'm taking the unusual action of closing this AfD early, and I feel it's only fair to those who have contributed that I explain my reasoning for doing so. I see a very solid consensus on this page for the retention of the pages backed up by very solid arguments, and I can envisage absolutely no way that the consensus is going to change so severely to result in the pages being deleted in the near future, given the very strong consensus to keep these articles that has developed now there are one of two ways things could go, if this AfD was allowed to run the full term, consensus would remain unchanged from the very strong keep we have at the moment, or some further good quality delete comments would come in, and at best, there would be a no consensus closure, either way, there is no way that this AfD is ever going to result in the deletion of the articles listed below.

That alone would not normally be enough for an early closure, but given the growing bad blood between the nominator and participants, and the potential this AfD has to become a massive time sink, generating more heat than light, I think it's in the best interests for all involved to close this AfD now, before people become upset and more accusations start flying.

I trust this explanation is sufficient, if not, please don't hesitate to contact me. Nick (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norton Canes services

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

These pages are about rest areas on a highway system in the United Kingdom, they amount to nothing more than stubs of nearly useless information. There are millions of rest areas in the world's highway systems and these are no more notable then any other. There already exists a general article about these service centers (Motorway service area) and a listing of them all (List of motorway service areas in the United Kingdom), these two pages contain virtually all the relevent information each individual page contains. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository and virtually all of this information comes from [1] or the individual commerical companies websites that run these facilities. Examples of other rest areas pages that do not create pages for each idividual site is Illinois Tollway oasis and the general Rest area page. These pages do not meet notability requirements in my opinion. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the following articles as well, under the same rationale:

Note: I am aware this is a significant request that encompass many pages and possibly some templates that need deleted/edited as well. But I do feel these pages strongly do not meet inclusion criteria and should be deleted, the existing general pages/list linked above is more than sufficient with some additional expanding/editing to cover all the information that ALL these pages contain in an easier to read and accessible form. When you break information like this out into 50 pages that contain very little information that all could be quickly and concisely added to a page like List of motorway service areas in the United Kingdom it makes the information less useful and harder to obtain. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note there was a past AfD in 2006 for these pages, thus the 2nd nomination in the title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donington Park services

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 06:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section break 1

Comment, I was just at the Thomas Edison service area on the New Jersey Turnpike, and I have to say that the thought occurred to me that somebody would make a Wikipedia article on it, and that I should make sure it redirected to the main article or a list. These highway oases need to be treated in context, since they cannot even be accessed without being on the hghway/tollway involved. Abductive (reasoning) 06:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not true of UK Motorway services. They can all be accessed from local non-motorway roads. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge most to a list per motorway (e.g. Motorway service areas on the M5) but those with significant history and/or cultural impact (e.g. Watford Gap services) should definitely have a stand-alone article (and a summary on the per-Motorway page with a {{Main article}} link). Basically I think that if the encyclopaedic information can be summed up in one paragraph or less the article should be merged, if it can't then a standalone article is appropriate (I don't consider a list of food/retail outlets to be encyclopaedic in this context). I've only looked at a couple of the articles so far, but Sedgemoor services and Taunton Dene services should be merged, Watford Gap services should be kept. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lancaster (Forton) and Watford Gap - Lancaster is of particular interest given the unusual 'control tower' visible from the carriageway (which I believe is a listed building), and Watford Gap was the first services to open in the UK. I agree most of the others are unimportant stubs. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As I have failed to locate the individual deletion debates for each article, and as the only notification was through use of edit summaries for general communication instead of talk pages, I contend that this debate may be irrelevant, see: User_talk:Raeky#AfD_Motorway__service_stations, and that any consensus reached by it may possibly not be representative of any or all of the articles discussed here.--Kudpung (talk) 10:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you for warning me on my talk page, but I have followed proper procedure for this. These pages have been discussed to be deleted before here which is pretty clearly linked above. Thanks for your concern that I did something wrong but I haven't. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are no prior deletions recorded at that URL. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge most per Thryduulf. Mr Stephen (talk) 10:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge most to a list of per-motorway services, with possibility to split out particularly notable ones if there is more content than a couple of paragraphs.

Strong keep all. Motorway service stations in the UK don't equate to rest stops in the US. British service stations are both a rarity (AFAIK this AFD lists every service station in the entire country), and major economic centres in their own right, and in the British context, where construction alongside the motorway network is incredibly tightly controlled (every one of these required a specific Act of Parliament to build), there's no such thing as an "insignificant service station". There are fewer motorway service stations in Britain than there are train stations on London's Northern line alone, and we – rightly – cover every railway station; the smallest of these service stations serves more users than all but the busiest railway stations, and every service station is a major institution (and often the largest employer) in their community. That some of the articles are unsourced and stubby is a red herring; every single one of these will have been the subject of lengthy proposals, discussions, planning applications, legal disputes over siting, architectural competitions, formal (often Royal) openings etc – all of which will have been the subject of significant press coverage at every stage. The nominator has included the {{findsources}} for Norton Canes as part of this nomination, but I see no evidence that they've actually checked them; Norton Canes, for instance, is uniquely the only British service station to be built on a toll road, the site of the head offices of RoadChef, the site of a museum of neolithic artifacts found during the construction of the motorway, the venue for a unique (and failed) experiment in providing fine dining in the motorway context... – iridescent 11:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rarity or not, they're not notable. Also, if you didn't know, true service stations accessible only from the highway, is RARE in the united states (Because MOST are illegal). But you don't see individual pages for each one. The two existing pages, the main page and listing page is ENOUGH, but individual pages for EVERY SINGLE service center is overkill for this. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST Jeni ^(talk) 15:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:NOTREPOSITORY — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:IDIOCRACY --Malleus Fatuorum 16:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep All the nominator has made an invalid comparison between US rest areas and UK service stations, they are completely different. We don't have articles on rest areas in the UK, such as Todhills rest area on the M6. Not only that but he has blatently obviously failed to look at individual articles such as Strensham services and Watford Gap services both of which have been expanded beyond stub status (Strensham is a Good Article). Stubs aren't bad, they just haven't been expanded yet. As such this is an invalid nomination as it fails WP:BEFORE. Jeni ^(talk) 12:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I pointed out, they are exactly like US highway oases, which are not notable. Abductive (reasoning) 17:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BEFORE isn't a valid excuse to keep, the discussion was in 2006. My argument is multi-fold, that they themselves individually are not notable, that there exists sufficient pages already that overview them 1 2 and that having MANY idividual pages for this makes the information harder to access. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - But its a valid excuse to render this nomination invalid and disruptive, as you have not followed nomination guidelines, at all! Jeni ^(talk) 15:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not approprate to list each page as an AfD, see Wikipedia:BEFORE#How_to_list_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion, so how have I not followed guidelines? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please refer to the comment by the closing admin at the last AfD, which I have already quoted, below. And read WP:BEFORE Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You have blatantly failed to check for sources on each article to try to establish notability yourself, I suspect you didn't look at many of them other than to add an AfD tag. You didn't notify the creators of the articles about this discussion. Jeni ^(talk) 16:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep all per Iridescent; whose key points were made the last time these were bulk-nominated for deletion by someone confusing these major UK features with minor US rest-rooms. Note that, when the last bulk-AfD ended, the closing admin said "If anybody has a beef with particular stations, I suggest single noms to sort those out.". If only we could salt a keep. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP policies and procedures in 2006 is not the same as today, plus these pages have had YEARS to adapt and become more than stubs, plus now there exists well created pages like Motorway service area and List of motorway service areas in the United Kingdom to handle this information. The BULK of these pages (if not all) can be easily merged into those two pages. It makes the information easier to obtain for the reader and removes a ton of stubs in one step. Unless an individual service center can beyond any doubt meet notability requirements beyond that it just exists then it shouldn't have it's own page. We don't create pages for every shopping mall or other large-employment commercial establishments that are "rare" for an area. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Policies may have changed (though I doubt those relevant here have changed significantly), but the prior debates contain explanations of notability which you have clearly either overlooked or ignored; and there is no time-limit on the life of a stub. Your shopping mall argument is a red herring, and of no significance. You have nominated many articles with clearly- and already- established notability, some of which you have subsequently dismissed "a mention in a song by some guy"). The Motorway service area article was created in June 2005, so is no more relevant now than in prior debates. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep all per Iridescent and Jeni. As has been said there has been an incorrect comparions to US rest areas and UK service stations. UK service stations are major places. They are constantly refered to a major landmarks on the Travelnews etc. Who hasn't heard about Clacket Lane services for instance? The fact the M25 only has three service areas shows how rare there are. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 12:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Since the nominator tagged all these articles for deletion and made some sweeping statements about notability, I feel comfortable making equally generalised statements in response. Motorway service stations are not that common, so the argument that Wikipedia might run out of paper if we include them seems flawed. Here's a list of them. It may seem a lot, but when you realise that there isare only ~~one~~ on the 60-mile long M3 motorway it becomes apparent that they are important as "fast roads with few junctions needed 24-hour services at regular intervals". They are landmarks in their own right, for example this article uses the phrase "on the M5 near Sedgemoor services" because service stations are well-know. In the UK, motorway services are privatised, allowing businesses to invest in the site. I can't find any stats on visitor numbers, but they're enough to sustain several franchises (take a look at this link which I picked at random). There's plenty of information that could be included in articles about motorway services if you just think about it that a list would be poorly suited to handle. Opening date, construction, impact on the local economy, opinions of the locals etc. I don't think the sources have even been examined add this one which took me 30 seconds to find to the ones Iridescent provided.
Also, nominating a couple of Good Articles was a silly idea as they have clearly established notability, which sort of undermines the general statements in the nomination. Nev1 (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which specific article do you think even REMOTELY qualifies for a Good Articles?! I can nominate ANYTHING for ANYTHING, doesn't make it a GA or Notable. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't understand the term "Good Article". Go and read WP:GA?, then you might understand why nominating a GA for not being notable is ludicrous. Anything can be nominated for anything, but that doesn't guarantee it will succeed, as will be demonstrated when the GAs you've nominated are kept for being notable. Nev1 (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just double checked, not a single page listed that I can see is listed as a Good Article. Again which one that I nominated is a Good Article? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By making general statements about the notability of motorway services, you are implicitly including all of them, despite not having listed the likes of Strensham services. Articles such as that demonstrate what can be found about motorway services. Nev1 (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, aruguably Watford Gap could be the next GA, with some in line sourcing and expansion. Jeni ^(talk) 16:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say some of these (very few I suspect) MIGHT meet notability requirements, and sure I didn't nominate EVERY single one, although more probably should be added to this list. Just because one or two are notable does NOT mean all 50+ of them need individual pages. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The M3? Fleet and Winchester!! Yes there's two on the M3. But as you said there are still very few. I used the example there's only three on the M25. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 13:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed, the point still stands, although I must learn to count :-) Nev1 (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep It took me about 10 minutes to find and add some information from a reliable source, and there is plenty more out there. These articles have great possibilities, and their existence serves to encourage development of wikipedia. Strensham and others show what can be done. Independent notability is established; I see no reason to merge, let alone delete. I hope that they can all develop in the future. Chzz ► 13:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment If we had articles on rest areas, we'd have articles such as Bangor rest area (A5), Todhills rest area (M6), Oldbury rest area (M5/A419), Tiverton rest area (M5), Markfield rest area (M1). But we don't, and thank god we don't, there would be hundreds! The nominator has a massive misunderstanding about the difference between service areas and rest areas, and on this basis I suggest he withdraws the nomination. Jeni ^(talk) 13:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your misunderstanding of what wikipedia is and is not isn't grounds that these should be kept. You admit yourself that "thank god" we don't have a page for every single one. What makes a "service area" notable in the UK and not anywhere else in the world? Should we add thousands of service area pages for every one in the world? They're not notable because they are rare in the UK. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Iridescent's comments, which I strongly agree with. Also, batch nominations should rarely be used unless the articles are nearly identical, as it's impossible to thoroughly review 50 or so pages in one sitting. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats why AfD's are many days before they close, gives you plenty of time. Plus MOST of these pages are one or two lines with an infobox, easy to read. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep (all) - as per Nev1's comments, particularly concerning the Good Articles, and especially as as over half the nominated articles have already survived a AfD with 'keep'. Any suggestions in the comments above that this AfD may have been instigated with a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy, rules, or AfD procedure, also receive my support, and as per my earlier comment, I suggest this AfD should be closed as invalid. --Kudpung (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (all) on the basis of WP is NOT a travel guide. However, I agree that these discussions may need to be handled individually. In particular, I am not finding that these articles meet the notability criteria of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, but that must be discussed indivually.
For instance, the article on Norton Canes services uses a reference to a BBC article. BBC is definitely a reliable and independent source. The article is about the subject (the service area), although I suspect the article is much more than a regurgitation of a company press release. There is another source given for this service area that says how many jobs are created by its existence--THIS is the type of encyclopedic data that is needed (in my mind) to make this article more than a "travel guide" entry. (However, these do not add up to significant coverage to me.) But these types of merits must be discussed for each individual article.
Many of the articles in the list have no references at all, merely external links to travel guides that list and rate services. These should be deleted as there is no encyclopedic merit to these articles.
I suggest merging into the article about the road or moving the articles to WikiTravel.- ¢Spender1983 (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that information on "how many jobs are created by its existence" for each of the services is unavailable, or simply that because it's not in the article that it should be deleted? Nev1 (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So your vote is suggesting that Watford Gap services and Strensham services should also be deleted? Thats what is generally accepted when you say delete all. Obviously you haven't taken the time to look at the articles up for nomination, a big mistake at AfD, and is as disruptive as the nomination. Jeni ^(talk) 15:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a VOTE, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point, you're quibbling over terminology? You've not addressed what Jeni said. Nev1 (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have above — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible keep all per Iridescent/Jeni's arguments. :-) Majorly talk 15:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Iridescent and Jeni expressed it very well. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per keep arguments above, and notably because single AfD nominations of groups of articles of massively variable quality and notability is wholly unacceptable. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They're all the same, one has a mention in a song by some guy and the other has some interesting landmark near it. Hardly sets them worlds apart from the others. It's perfectly acceptable to group AfD's of EXTREMELY similar pages into one single discussion about them. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, Roy Harper's song is wholly about Watford Gap service station. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep all - Comparing Motorway services in the UK to rest stops in the US is like comparing a B&B to the Savoy Hotel. These are all large multi million pound a year operations, very rare, and over an entire motorway you may only get two services each 80 to 100 miles apart. They are a huge part of British culture and even have had their own TV series. Each service area employs hundreds of people, full commercial services, full fuel servicing and some even have mechanical services and provide parking for thousands of vehicles. Most act as an enroute base of operations for breakdown services. In fact if Iridesent's comment that they all required acts of parliament to individually create (and that is referencable) then notability is especially established there and then. Canterbury Tail talk 15:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And these are different from the service centers across the world how? And it establishes notablity beyond these pages Motorway service area and List of motorway service areas in the United Kingdom to justify their own individual page? I don't think so. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The differences have already been explained, both by Iridescent, above, and in prior AfD debates, which you are supposed to have read. What you think, in ignorance of these facts, is immaterial. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have read them all, but I didn't see anything valid, basically it boils down too "they're rare in the UK thus justifying individual pages," or that proper procedure wasn't followed. I still don't see anything that establishes the need for individual pages that can't be covered by Motorway service area and List of motorway service areas in the United Kingdom. For a commercial center like this to be qualified for it's own wikipedia page there needs to be significant news coverage OF IT. Passing references to it in news as location doesn't really count. It's common practice that specific roadmarks/locations are used as a indicator of location on highways that doesn't make that location notable in wikipedia standards. Could it be mentioned and should it on the main roadway's article, sure. But to create individual pages for every roadmark on a roadway isn't. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It has been pointed out to you many times now that these are not mere "roadmarks", they are significant commercial centres and significant local employers. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        So do Shopping malls but do we create a page for every single one in the world? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        (ec) Actually we seem to for most Jeni ^(talk) 16:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        depends on how significant they are to their local communities. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        (ec) Actually we seem to for most Jeni ^(talk) 16:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Using the word "most" is pretty bold, I challenge you to show that MOST of the worlds shopping malls have pages here. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please point to the apparently recently-introduced Wikipeida policy requiring each article to be the subject of "significant news coverage". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Doubt it's new, but here you go for the guideline at WP:N: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That's no, then; so your assertion that "For a commercial center like this to be qualified for it's own wikipedia page there needs to be significant news coverage OF IT." was bogus. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Quite sure you don't understand wikipedia policy in terms of notability, but thanks for your comments. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Given that and your other recent comments, you're sailing very close to the wind with WP:AGF and [{WP:NPA]]. And it wasn't me who said that "For a commercial center like this to be qualified for it's own wikipedia page there needs to be significant news coverage OF IT." Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No but your constantly baiting and attempting to derail the topic and ignoring presented counter claims against your statements. WP Notability policy clearly states it needs significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to justify its OWN page. There is no evidence the vast majority of these service centers meet that. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Nobody is disputing WP:N and the only person who has misrepresented it is you. Pointing out such misrepresentation is not "baiting" and is not "attempting to derail the topic" and suggesting otherwise is the very behaviour about which I have just cautioned you. You have included in this AfD articles with clearly cited notability. Why is that? I have ignored none of the points you have put to me; but if you think otherwise, please feel free to point them out and I shall adress them now. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Many also have large motels on site as well. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section break 2

Comment We need to keep in mind Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing here, and a need to avoid things like particularlly offensive comments like that one by Jeni on her talk page directed at me. Although I didn't intentionally go out and notify every editor of the pages (which is not required to do), and I do welcome open discussion on the topic and think the main editors should be notified. And Jeni ~~didn't~~ did correctly notify all the previous participants regardless of their opinion to participate in this article. But if your opinion of me is a typical American thus unqualified to decide on notability of things in the UK, then this argument is moot in your opinion. Only UK editors apparently are capable of launching AfD discussions on the merits of UK locations?~! — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks to me that Jeni made a perfectly accurate observation, as you are repeatedly making more and more evident. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I let the participants in the previous AfD know about this debate, regardless of vote or activity (unless there was a note on their talk page to not leave a message). Nothing wrong with that at all, it falls under letting interested parties know about a discussion, which is perfectly acceptable under WP:CANVASS, I guess that's another page you haven't read. Jeni ^(talk) 16:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't say it was inappropriate to notify them, I said it probably should of been done and you was correct to do so, thank you. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ooops, on rereading what I posted, I made a typo. I typically do that when typing fast, sorry. I ment that you DID properly notify them. Corrected my mistake. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way were the messages "mass posting, biased, partisan, secret"? And if you find it offensive that someone thinks you know nothing about motorway services... so what? I know nothing about silent movies and if someone said that about me I couldn't care less. Nev1 (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't say that it had occurred, I just said that it appears that it could. From the previous AfD it appears to be mostly hamstrung by "as per" votes and very little substance. This isn't a vote. Valid arguments must be presented on both sides. I'd rather this not2 be a "omg an american is deleting UK pages, ATTACK" and every editor in the UK Roads Project comes here with "as per" votes. I believe my arguments on that they individually are not notable enough for their own pages is sound. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - 'Comment - All as per means is that the arguments have already been made and they don't see the need to reiterate the exact same thing again. Canterbury Tail talk 17:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:LEADER — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - FWIW, I haven't notified the UK Roads wikiproject, as that's as good as inactive, so I notified the next appropriate wikiproject, being WP:UKGEO. And if you didn't try to apply the American logic on rest areas, a completely separate thing, then this AfD may have more of a valid reasoning! I have no issue with Americans making nominations/commments, but I do have a problem with them making uninformed comments without doing any appropriate research into the subject, and trying to approach the issue as if it was a US rest area. Jeni ^(talk) 17:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Because I linked Illinois Tollway oasis as an example I applied the "american argument"? Plus I find it hard to believe you bothered to look on my user page to discover my nationality because it actually matters for this discussion? How does where I am located on the earth reflect on my credibility as a wikipedia editor?! — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually I deduced that from your spelling and the phrases you use. I'm not saying it is reflecting your credibility. The credibility is affected because you have failed to adequately research the subject before making the nomination, that would apply to anyone of any nationality. Jeni ^(talk) 17:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Absolutely. You say on your own userpage that you're American; you clearly have no knowledge of the subject, since you're continually equating the "gas-station and a McDonalds" US-style rest areas with the de facto small towns and hubs of the local community that constitute British service areas, despite repeatedly having the difference pointed out to you. (If you're still doubting the whole "each one required its own Parliamentary approval" thing, here's the authorisation for Norton Canes.) Seriously, quit flogging the dead horse; your constant repetition of the mantra that a US truckstop is equivalent to a European MSA because they have similar sounding names is like comparing my house to Joseph Priestley House because they're both houses built in the 1790s. – iride scent 17:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I did NOT state that because we don't have these in the United States that they must be deleted. Your either reading something completely different than I am or something worse. I've clearly kept stating this on a global reference. Because they're big shopping areas does not make them notable in their own right. There needs to be reliable sources to back up their notability for them to sustain their own individual pages. I don't understand your "since you're continually equating the 'gas-station and a McDonalds' US-style rest areas" where have I compared them to standard REST AREAS on US Highways. The page Rest area is all-encompassing from small bathroom break areas to full blown "de facto small towns" since it links directly to the UK service areas pages. Again what does me being an American have to do with this discussion?! — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        "Where have I compared them to standard REST AREAS on US Highways"? That would be in the first line of this nomination ("There are millions of rest areas in the world's highway systems and these are no more notable then any other"). As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, you have clearly not carried out the most basic WP:BEFORE work here, since the sources clearly exist. Seriously, stop it; you're heading rapidly towards the line that separates "good faith misunderstanding" from "disruptive refusal to admit you made a mistake". – iride scent 17:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Rest area is an proper term for these, see Rest area. Because I don't see your side of the argument and disagree with you I'm approaching bad-faith disruptive behavior?! Good thing you're not an admin. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree with Iridescent, sources have been provided. Care to make personal comments about me too? Nev1 (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        No, Rest area is not the proper term, see Motorway service area. Rest area is the proper term for rest areas (obviously), such as Todhills rest area etc. Once again you are trying to apply American logic! Jeni ^(talk) 17:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        See: Rest_area#United_Kingdom Although your country generally draws a distinction between the two phrases, wikipedia lumps them together globally as rest areas. If you actually attempted to read the lead paragraph on Rest area it is a valid term to describe these. Plus your local distinction isn't really relevant if I used the term "Rest area" to describe these or not, this is about the notability of them to justify individual pages for each one. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Rest area#United Kingdom. You might want to actually read the articles you're citing. – iride scent 17:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You mean like this, "Other names include rest and service area (RSA), service station, resto, service plaza, and service center, service centre, and motorway services (or just "services" in the UK)." in the lead paragraph? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm thinking probably "The term "rest area" is not generally used in the United Kingdom" is worth reading. So wikipedia lumps them together. So what. Wikipedia's not a reliable source. Nev1 (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        (don't know why you changed the date of my comment to the 25th?!), but it's use is irrelevant even here. The AfD isn't about if they're classified as "rest area" on WP or elsewhere or how I used the term it's about their notability. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Once again, motorway service stations on British motorways are not just rest areas. They are major features of the road system and their establishment and operation is covered by Act of Parliament. These places are not just truck stops! As the Illinois Tollway oasis article states, these kinds of developments are rare in the United States (and just because nobody has created articles on individual oases doesn't mean they shouldn't, so this is in no way a precedent). In a fair amount of travel in Europe, I have found only one or two service areas that even come close to the size and facilities of a British motorway service station. And no policy says that articles should be deleted just because they are currently stubs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Show us some reliable sources on them. Abductive (reasoning) 17:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - On what? British motorway service stations? Look at the articles. Stubs? Proof of existence is all that's needed for a stub. Look at a map! -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're incorrect, proof of existence is NOT all that is needed for a page on wikipedia. You exist (I assume your not a computer program but a real person), but do you AS A PERSON need a wikipedia page and meet notability requirements? No. Existence isn't enough to proof notability. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I didn't say it was and I've never argued that it was. I was merely attempting to answer Abductive's rather ambiguous post about sources. If an article had multiple sources it wouldn't be a stub! -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't mean to offend I was simply commenting on your above statement "Proof of existence is all that's needed for a stub. Look at a map!" If what you said there wasn't what you meant then I'm glad we cleared that up. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 21:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets not argue over a few service stations now, personally, I would Keep the articles per past points, but now i'm expecting some lecture about policies from one of those who wants them deleted.Cybie 17:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Strong keep all and please can we have it made official policy that UK motorway service areas are notable. Blaisdon Halt probably handled fewer travellers in a month than a service station handles in a day. Why does the notability of Blaisdon Halt go unquestioned while we have to fight repeatedly re service stations? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a valid argument. Likewise I'd consider A LOT of these railway station pages to not meet the same notability requirements to justify their own page. But we'll tackle those another day, shall we? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure that upon the outcome of this AfD, we can get it added to the common outcomes page. Jeni ^(talk) 17:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to mention Blaisdon Halt is a pile of rubble now, I had to laugh at the link to the "Picture of the station today".Cyberdemon007 (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thomas Edison Service Area, is that the pissanty little rest stop about 15-20 miles south of Newark International? If so I was there about three weeks ago (our driver had to call in for gas on the way to the airport), and I remember thinking it seemed small. Much smaller than any of the MSAs in the UK by a large margin. If it is the same place I'm remembering. Had enough space to park about 50 trucks, and maybe 80-100 cars. I think it had a petrol station, Sun Oil or some such and a Burger King. Canterbury Tail talk 17:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit conflict - Sorry, mis-remembering, it was on the way from the airport the day before. Canterbury Tail talk 18:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is relevant to this discussion how? Plus it definitely sounds like you're being very negative here. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's relevant if that is the basis that if you are using to compare with the UK MSAs then it's the wrong basis for comparison. Canterbury Tail talk 18:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't make any such comparison, and definitely not with this particular place. I'm stating that the vast bulk of these service centers do not meet basic notability requirements for their own page. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a rest stop, it is an oasis. Rest stops have toilets and vending machines. If something is important/notable it will have secondary sources testifying to that. Please provide some. Abductive (reasoning) 18:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I guess all we need to show notability of these once and for all is the Acts of Parliment. That would establish notability beyond a shadow of a doubt. Canterbury Tail talk 18:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there was an "Act of Parliament" to create it doesn't mean it meets wp:notability requirements. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you can get anymore reliable significant coverage than an Act of Parliment specifically for the topic, for any article. The government of a country passing an Act specifically to create something is most definitely notable. Canterbury Tail talk 18:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should expand, an Act of Parliament is notable for them as a whole, but NOT for each one individually to justify them having individual pages. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand the significance here. An Act of Parliament didn't establish MSAs in general, a completely separate and individual Act of Parliament is made to establish each individual one. Canterbury Tail talk 18:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it was done as one act or individual acts is immaterial to the notability of the individual sites. It can be used to establish notability for them as a whole, needining an act to be made, but not for each one individually. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another reason why these articles should be kept is that there is a potential for them to expand to cover thousands of years of history. Todays major trunk routes in England still follow the routes build by the Romans, meaning that the area of the services has been in use for at least 2000 years and in some cases going back to neolithic. Before construction they would have had a full archaelogical study and excavation. For Wikipedia, that means there will be at least an archaelogical report to quote from. The petrol station itself may not be notable, but the land it was build on is notable. Putney Bridge (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTCRYSTAL — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:CRYSTAL is irrelevant, however I'm not sure if there'll be much in the way of archaeological reports as PPG 16 was not introduced until 1990 and is guidance rather than law. It's good practice to consider the archaeology of an area before planning (ie: consulting the county archaeologist and asking if any investigation needs to be done) but not compulsory. Nev1 (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - How is WP:CRYSTAL irrelevant here, when Putney Bridge is making unverifiable speculation about how the site could of been used thousands of years ago. Unless theres real wp:reliable sources that shows that one of these sites is a real historically significant archeological site AND the government put a commercial service center OVER it then I can justify that that specific service center is notable. Otherwise it's WP:CRYSTAL. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's irrelevant because WP:CRYSTAL applies to "unverifiable speculation", ie: information that can't be verified. That's the meaning of "unverifiable". Archaeological reports are reliable sources. Nev1 (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Do they exist and show that these are actually significant historical archaeological sites that the government built a commercial shopping/rest area over anyway? If so I'd WELCOME the addition of that source to the relevant page(s) and gladly withdraw the AfD for those page(s), but if they don't exist it's WP:CRYSTAL and if they do exist and show no important archaeological site then they're not relevant for the notability of the site. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Talk about missing the point. Putney Bridge said there's the potential for there to be associated archaeology. If you actually read what I said instead of latching onto one insignificant detail you'd understand that I said there probably wasn't any archaeology associated with most MSAs. If there is any associated archaeology, it can be verified. Nev1 (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The key word there is potential that's the keyword to justify WP:CRYSTAL as invalidating the argument. This clearly falls under WP:PROVEIT. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Potential to be added to the article, not potential to be found. I have seen the artefacts plus reports at local museums and some are on display at the services. If you want to see an immediate sample, this link [2] which is already mentioned above which refers to Norton Canes. Give me a couple of weeks and I will visit some local librarys for more facts.Putney Bridge (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Finding some old flit and a log that it's use can't be determined isn't hardly groundbreaking archeological discoveries. It's definitely not going to meet the criteria for an archaeological site to justify it's own page. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I whole-heartedly agree that the paucity of finds at Stafford services does not merit an article of its own, although a site doesn't have to be groundbreaking to be notable. However, I have added info on the archaeological investigation as it is relevant to the construction of the services. Nev1 (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Archaeology is not just about finding buried treasure. The stratification and context of finds in relation to other finds and landscape features builds up a story of the area. The BBC report proves there are finds, the archaeological report will tell much more. Putney Bridge (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That was a good suggestion Putney Bridge, a search of the Bournmouth University database of archaeological reports produces about a dozens reports relating to rescue archaeology and MSAs. Only a summary of the reports is available online, but the information is worth including in the various articles. Nev1 (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Unless theres a substantive find beyond just an artifact, it does little to establish notability for the service center or area. And a substantive find will be referenced in secondary sources not just primary. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Archaeological finds are not the basis for claims of notability, as ought to have been abundantly clear from the discussion already. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        If an archaeological find is not the basis for notability then why continue this thread? Only a substansitive archaeologically significant find would be notable and be backed up by easily obtainable secondary sources. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you a fool or just pretending to be one for a bet? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        We could continue this thread as it has lead to the improvement of the article at the centre of this AfD. That is what we're here for right? Archaeological finds are not the basis of notability, but are worth noting in the relevant articles. Nev1 (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep United Kingdom motorway service stations are notable for a number of reasons, although it could be argued some are more notable than others but as the proposer has lumped them together then they all need to be kept. A number of them have architectural merit, most have a working population and a physical area higher then most hamlets and villages deemed to be notable by default. Some are important locally for their economic impact in rural areas. Clacket Lane has an ancient Roman road passing through it. The fact that most are stubs is not an argument for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is true then back each one up with references, I didn't lump sum them all, I didn't nominate EVERY page. Although I think you'd be hard-pressed to find one or two that do meet wp:notability requirements to justify their own page, they most definitely all do NOT meet those requirements individually. Single architectural distinctions or merits or even a unique selling point probably in it's own right doesn't meet wp:notability requirements and could definitely be added and expanded upon on the general pages Motorway service area and List of motorway service areas in the United Kingdom. The ones I listed I don't believe meet basic notability requirements for their own page. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If these things are not actually classified as legal towns with postal codes, post offices, etc, then you can't compare them to hamlets and villages. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yet again, you're equating the US and the UK. "Postal codes and post offices" have no bearing on the status of anything; every street in Britain has a different postcode, and each service station will undoubtedly have its own postcode, while, rather famously, most small towns in Britain no longer have their own post office. (Incidentally, many MSAs do include a post office...) – iridescent 18:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Again your missing the point and trying to bait this AfD into a US vs UK debate, cease and desist your bad-faith attempts to derail the topic. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You have claimed, once again quite incorrectly, that motorway service areas do not have postal codes, and post offices, which is blatantly untrue. It is you who is displaying bad faith here, along with a staggering level of ignorance and intransigence. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I stated that they're not towns, and can't be compared to towns is what I stated. Stated it in a way that may be silly when you know how the postal system in UK works and I don't, sure, but I stated they're not towns and can't be equated to towns. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        So is your argument now that only towns deserve to have articles? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm clearly stating that towns are notable, and you can't compare a non-town to a town to bolster your claim the non-town is notable because of towns. To make the general assumption that I mean if something is not a town it can't have a page is clearly assuming bad-faith. These comments are quickly approaching personal attacks and unjustified for the AfD discussion. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Note the Clacket Lane for one has a post code (TN16 2ER), and Toddington LU5 6HR, and Leigh Delamare SN14 6LB, so they are recognised as significant by the Royal Mail. MilborneOne (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Clacket Lane is notable in that is has a Kent Postcode but is actually in Surrey. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Obviously the UK postal service assigns postal codes to almost anything. Just like in the US (ZIP+4). This isn't grounds for notability. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You do not know whereof you speak. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Personal attacks are not helpful to this discussion. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        In what way can that be considered a personal attack?? Nev1 (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        (ec) It is not a personal attack. The majority of UK postcode relate to a group of premises, not to a single premise. Thus your "obviously" comment is wrong. Thus you know not whereof you speak. That's the way it works with statements that are provably false. Your personal attack comment is nothing more than mid-slinging and unhelpful --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        To just out-of-hand dismiss the point of my comment as "you don't know what your talking about" is construed as a personal attack, at least to me. I'm saying that just because the postal service assigns a postal code to the area, site, road, building, which is common in most postal systems, is not grounds for notability and not even part of my original point that these places are not towns and can't gain notability by equating them to one. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        So you do understand how the UK postal system works after all? Can't seem to make your mind up. If you really knew what you were talking about then you would not have initiated this AfD. Your continual refutation of points like "it's not a town and so can't be equated to a town" is becoming tiresome and disruptive, and I would strongly urge you to withdraw this ill-conveived AfD. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Progress

Are we actually getting anywhere here? Since my last vist, this page has exploded into a huge mess with Raeky seemingly arguing their point for each and every single thing anyone else writes, and people throwing the same things about. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need a "progress" section after just a few hours on day one? AfD's are 5 days. There still hasn't been presented any evidence that these sites meet notability requirements justifying their own wikipedia page. Lots of arguments, and lots of attempts at derailing and borderline personal attacks. Apparently a few of the editors here have very personally strong opinions of these service centers. But luckily a couple passionate editors about these centers isn't grounds for inclusion in wikipedia. Progress so far in the first 3.5 hours since it was an AfD is silly to even ask for. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've arrived at consensus. It now only remains for Racky to have the good grace to acknowledge it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus here after 3.5 hours! AfD's run 5 days minimum. This clearly doesn't meet WP:SNOW. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's running about 16 keep, 3 merge and 2 delete. Those numbers may increase, but the obvious pattern will be maintained. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vote, numbers don't matter, substance of the arguments do. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sixteen people think they've made substantially better arguments than you. One person agrees with your arguments. What part of that pattern can you not see? --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly they're not all backed up by wikipedia policy in these matters. There has yet to be one that shows wp:notability for the individual pages for the MAJORITY of these service centers. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If even you concede that notability is cogently being argued for even a minority of the subjects of the articles, then your group AfD MUST fail, else notable articles will be swept aside as a baby with the bathwater. And meanwhile you are not the best judge of whether notability in general has successfully been argued, given your anti- POV. As I say, the majority of those who have debated find differently than you. Eventually you'll have to accept that other people have legitimate views that differ from your. Do the decent thing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Show me one of my nominated pages that clearly pass wp:notability guidelines and I'll gladly remove it from the AfD. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of them probably, but certainly Knutsford services. I think in any event that you confuse the absence of a claim of notability with the absence of notability. I suggest that if you are set on AfDing every single motorway service area in the UK that you do so one at a time, as they are by no means all the same. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your belief that they all probably meet criteria is not sufficient. There is nothing in Knutsford services to assert notability and to do all these individually one at a time would take MONTHS of an effort. This is far more efficient to bulk group virtually identical pages (in terms of reason for AfD) together in one AfD. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that your effort would fail, as I could very easily add properly sourced material to prove notability even to a diehard deletionist like you. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And unsurprisingly, you have immediately attacked my point. I was bringing up the point that people are starting to just insult each other which is never going to get anywhere. Talking of "borderline personal attacks", I apologise for being so "silly"! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to derail the topic by personal attacks isn't something that is going to be used to close this AfD. We need to not degrade ourselves that far. There is an attempt to push the AfD into that to get it closed I'm sure. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to derail this AfD; it's quite probably invalid, and even if it isn't, it's already becoming clear that there is no consensus to delete. Your actions have already been described, rightly, as disruptive and you have been asked to withdraw to prevent further disruption. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

QED :-( Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that the nominator refers to "Rest areas" and uses the US spelling "centers" clearly indicates that he has never used a UK motorway service area, and does not appreciate that UK Planning laws prevent their creation at the whim of operators. These are at least as notable as railway stations for which there are thousnads of WP articles. I call for Speedy close as keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw

You have been asked by at least three wikipedians to withdraw this AfD. That, in my experience, is unprecedented. Please reconsider your position. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, in every respect. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded. – iride scent 20:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fourthed. This AfD is a complete waste of time. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not withdrawing the nomination as I feel there is substastiive merit to my assertion they do not meet notability requirements for individual pages as a majority with the exception of MAYBE one or two (that I did not AfD). But as a group the vast majority of them do not. If an admin feels my nominations are completely without merit he can close at his discretion. This clearly does not meet WP:SNOW or WP:KEEP. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:33, 5 September 2009 (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.