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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined speedy. It appears to be that many similar areas are notable. Therefore, sent to AfD. I am neutral. Black Kite (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can see no justification to keep this article about a privately owned refreshment and refuelling zone. There's no evidence of any reliable secondary coverage, so it clearly fails WP:NCORP. We wouldn't keep a similar article about a shopping mall or a petrol/gas station, so what makes motorway service areas so special?! Sionk (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, I see nothing notable in this article or the rest of the service station articles. You would not find them in an encyclopedia. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ROADOUTCOMES - "In the UK, motorway service areas are not considered to be equal to rest areas in the rest of the world and are generally kept as notable." (related AfD) and, sure enough, the place appears to be a minor local landmark for Cardiff. I've expanded the article and explained how it's mildly notable as an association with Cardiff City FC and for various fuel protests, which IMHO makes it borderline notable. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 09:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unexplained, why all motorway service areas are presumed notable. I can understand why a mass deletion of 50 areas en masse would have been problematic, but generally these are private businesses, with no timetables or public services etc., hardly comparable to a bus or train station. Sionk (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's another, slightly more recent AfD here which goes over similar ground, but in more depth. I think significant coverage might be up for debate, but there can be in no doubt now the services has coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 08:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It presents a difficult situation for everyone when so many articles are nominated in one go. Cardiff West services was an unimpressive stub when I nominated it. You've added some substance. I'll let the people decide whether it is sufficiently improved to remain here. Sionk (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY - I believe Ritchie's additions to the article make it worthy of retention through squeaking past GNG. - The BushrangerOne ping only 00:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We established long ago that motorway service stations in the UK are notable. They are legally established entities, although operated by private businesses, with certain legal requirements such as 24-hour opening and no charging for parking or use of toilet facilities. They are not just rest stops. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a UK motorway service station is not like a truck stop or rest area in most of the rest of the world, these are major multi-million pound installations each of which requires an Act of Parliament to establish. Canterbury Tailtalk 16:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE - See the previous AfD - it should be noted that this is actually a second nomination for this article and was previously kept, the discussion can be found here (if someone can template this into the article it would have been appreciated. I can't seem to find the template, seems it's only easily accessible when you create the article that I can find.) Canterbury Tailtalk 01:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never actually realised until I looked at the talk page that this is actually the third nomination. Oops. Canterbury Tailtalk 11:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly, Bushranger, no need to get personal. Insignificant stub, little way of knowing there had been a previous mass nomination that had resulted in a generic 'keep'. It's a strange decision on the surface of things and open to question. Sionk (talk) 12:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness to Sionk it did look like an unassuming stub, with no real reason to go checking the talk page for other AfDs. Honestly if I'd come across it and hadn't been involved before and was from outside the UK I would probably have had a similar reaction. Canterbury Tailtalk 12:34, 2 August 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.