Talk:Bristol/Bath to South Coast Study

Significance/Importance of this article

I came across this article as it appears on the Somerset wikiproject cleanup listing and am wondering whether to nominate it at AfD. A report from 2004 which, to the best of my knowledge hasn't really had any effect, seems a bit obscure for an article in an encyclopedia. The article itself doesn't really make clear the notability of the topic. Any thoughts?— Rod ^talk 14:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, do what you want, but

1. I'd expect WP:BEFORE and WP:NOTPAPER to come up in any such AfD;
2. I'm almost certain this will have been referred to in the specialist press, much of which is either not available online, or is behind paywalls;
3. The additional references which are desirable can't be added to a deleted article.

Having said all that, I'll have another look and see if I can locate any more information of significance regarding notability. -- Trevj (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I think what I want is something which says what the significance of this report was/is. Did it make any difference or was it just one of thousands of similar reports written each year. Perhaps some context about poor transport links for the town and cities in the area affecting the economy or similar.— Rod ^talk 20:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I found a bit of a summary at localgov.co.uk but am unable to add the info right now. Does that help? I know next to nothing about the study - isn't that part of the idea of working collaboratively to build this encyclopedia? -- Trevj (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed reinstatement of content

I propose removal of the redirect and reinstatement of this standalone article, dated 20:35, 24 October 2012.

• AfD, with merge closure
• DRV suggested discussion here with others (including relevant WikiProject members)

To restate the rationale given at DRV, "reinstating the article would make it easier for others (e.g. those with access to offline sources) to improve it and hence the encyclopedia." Thanks for reading. -- Trevj (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

If further sources could now be added which demonstrate the notability/significance of the report I don't object.— Rod ^talk 12:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

There are several claims in the DRV that the article meets WP:GNG, particularly the BBC and the government sources. Watch out, though, these sort of projects have all sorts of fringe groups pop out of the woodwork to say "zOMG transport improvements, no, save this tree!!!1111one1" which should be considered with care. Stick to the more obviously reliable sources if you can. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Although the AfD closed as "merge to Bristol" it seems the content was actually merged to Bath, Somerset#Transport - and is very much still there. I would argue therefore that there's nothing to "reinstate" since no content has been deleted. I would prefer to see the content on this subject at Bath#Transport being expanded first and if it reaches the point where a separate article is viable, THEN move the content to Bristol/Bath to South Coast Study, in accordance with Summary Style, otherwise we risk having yet another permastub on our hands. WaggersTALK 14:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Please use {{Replyto|Waggers}} when replying so that I receive a notification.

As there's nothing wrong with a permastub (because we're not paper, and that's an essay rather than policy) I've added a few refs and reinstated the content. If anyone thinks it warrants another AfD then be my guest. Otherwise, I suggest we please leave it for others to find and improve upon. Thanks. PS Regarding the merge destination, did you see the Historical discussion from Oct 2012 linked to from the DRV? -- Trevj (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bristol/Bath to South Coast Study. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160308072403/http://southwest-ra.gov.uk/nqcontent.cfm?a_id=1213 to http://www.southwest-ra.gov.uk/nqcontent.cfm?a_id=1213

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)