Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington services

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. Proto::type 10:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Washington services

Washington services (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Service station; no claim to notability given. --Nehwyn 19:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


  • Comment - This (and many other articles about UK MSAs) appears to have been added primarily as the vehicle for an external link to a website maintained by the article's author. MarkSG 19:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't disagree that seems to be the motive of the original author and since they have done it before many of those articles have gone on to be expanded into worthwhile articles. There is much more to do on the others. Regan123 23:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, just any run of the mill service station, definitely fails WP:LOCAL. --Terence Ong (C | R) 20:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This has been discussed on several occassions. See the most recent discussions here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donington Park services. Service stations are notable, multi million pound businesses. The article is a stub which needs expanding. If these are to be deleted then every small railway station should also be deleted.Regan123 22:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please, keep to the article in question (WP:INN). If you consider this service station notable because of its business activity, can you provide any evidence of WP:CORP notability? --Nehwyn 07:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:INN is not policy though it is, of course, a consideration. In fact if WP:INN was a ploicy then a large chunk of railway stations would become candidates. I think other discussions are relevant as a consensus was formed on as as notable (nor not dependent on your point of view) - if this didn't apply then, again, the stations would be up for a cull. A quick google search has resulted in this. There is no doubt more to be found - I have not seen a reference to an earlier installation of microwaves at a UK motorway services - something that makes it notable. Regan123 23:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The reference you provide states the cafe of the station used to be more or less Space 1999-themed for a while. Good for Wikitravel, maybe, but hardly a proof of encyclopaedic notability per se. Other AfD discussions indeed serve to establish a consensus - bot on whether to delete or keep the article(s) being nominated in those cases. They are not inclusion criteria or notability guidelines, which still exist as separate entities. An article proposed for deletion must be evaluated on its own merits, and must establish its own notability. This page is not for discussing the concept of notability for a whole category - it is about one specific article and whether it has sufficient proof of notability to avoid deletion or WP:LOCAL-style merging.
  • This is the phrase I am referring to: the fully automated microwave kitchen service which was unique when built - this gives it notability within the UK service stations. Regan123 09:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The source you mentioned never states it was unique, or the first of its kind, not even on a national level. Have you any proof it was the first of its kind in the UK, or is it something you have inferred yourself? --Nehwyn 10:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The source is about the early motorway cafes - it mentions nowhere else about this. Also there is no mention of microwave installations at another source. This is not original research and it relys on sources. As before I believe this is a keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Regan123 (talk • contribs).
  • Again, the source you mention does not contain the claim you make above. It describes the automated microwave in Washington services, but the fact that it does not describe others does not equal to a statement that there existed no others. If you have a source that contains the statement that that installment was the first of its kind, even just in the UK, please feel free to bring it to notice here. --Nehwyn 11:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Two more quick google searches (and I am at work!) show this which whilst a personal recollection (and obvously not referanceable) shows there is some merit in the statement. Also according to this it is the first service station in the North East and on the A1(M) based on the fact that all the others are in the North West or South of Manchester. Finally has the original author been notified or was a cleanup tag added as in my question below? Regan123 13:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The first of the two new links you mention is, as you correctly note, someone's post on a newsgroup, and thus satisfies neither WP:RS nor WP:V, so it cannot be used as a Wikipedia source; even if it were, it states they did have microwaves back in the day, true, but never states they were the first to do so on a national level. The second link states indeed that Washington is the oldest service station on that particular road, but that's hardly a claim to notability (every motorway sooner or later has a first station built). The oldest service station in the country, that's probably a claim to notability, but that is not the case here. --Nehwyn 15:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Why is it not a claim to notability? Would the first pub in an area not be notable for that? Would the first road in area not be notable? There are motorways that have no station and will probably never will do, so it is not "inevitable". There is one potential and one definite notability for this article now.Regan123 17:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
They hadn't been, so I have now added the appropriate message.Regan123 17:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Agree with everything Regan says, plus the fact that they are stubs, we have not yet had time to expand them (there's lots of 20th Century history to chronical), and they form a part of the 20th/21st Century which in all likelihood will not be with us forever. Already some have been rebuilt, there have been fires, shootings, prostitution, asylum scandals, others have won awards for design or food quality. South Mimms, which is one that has been marked (again) for deletion has had a TV documentary shown about it, and books written which reference it. My feeling is that these service areas, as unpleasant as many of them are, have their own stories to tell, and one day when we're long forgotton about probably will be wiped from existance altogehter, making this the perfect place to detail their histories. C2r 23:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please, keep to comments regarding the article in question (WP:INN), not others! Is there any evidence that anything of the sort you mention has ever occurred in the service area in question? --Nehwyn 07:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If I had time at this moment to defend each of the service areas individually, then I'd be writing individual articals about them to try and stop their deletion. However, I don't see the point in keeping 66% of the articles and trashing the other 33%, therefore my comments are relevant to this article as well as I was using South Mimms as an example of how others can also be significant and relevant - just because at the moment I don't have these details to hand doesn't mean they don't exist. C2r 23:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't know about the others, but if you want to defend this one, you have to write about this one. This is an individual deletion debate, not a category deletion or a mass deletion. The fact that other articles might be notable has no bearing on whether this one is. Please, stick to the article being discussed. --Nehwyn 08:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree with your assessment of the situation. As far as I see it, a motion to delete all of them was attempted, and failed, so now you're attempting to pick them off one by one - several of the same type of item have been nominated for deletion at the same time, which surely consitutes a group deletion? C2r 18:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This article was never discussed in an AfD, mass or otherwise. This is its first nomination, and it is an individual one: it is this article being discussed in this page, and not others or a whole category. Please, keep to the article in question! --Nehwyn 19:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Dmcdevit·t 01:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This article fails WP:LOCAL and really doesn't list almost any facts to make it notable. Diez2 01:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete While it certantly takes time to grow most articles beyond stub status, any stub worth keeping has enough context to show there is notability. In this case, none is offered. Simply existing does not make something notable. Resolute 02:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I thought it was America's Washington! Then I find out that it's some little known place in England! Delete! Spawn Man 02:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. Very ordinary gas station motorway stop. Edison 04:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per A7 Missvain 04:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge all the individual services articles into their respective motorway articles (in this case, the A1(M) motorway) or transwiki to Wikitravel. What's next, an individual article each Illinois Tollway oasis, or every taco stand on Mexican autopistas (there's some good ones, too, like around Toluca... barbecue rabbit, yum!)??? Having each petrol station have its own article is silly and indicates a bit of warped perspective as to what constitutes notability, IMHO. BTW, George Washington's family was from Sulgrave, rather than Washington, Tyne and Wear, although there may be a tenuous link otherwise. So a connection with George doesn't exist for purposes of establishgment of notability ;-) Tubezone 04:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Merge and delete is not a valid "vote" as it violates the GFDL. JYolkowski // talk 00:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no notability claimed for this service station. JIP | Talk 07:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Motorway services in the UK are very notable as they are used by maybe a million+ people each year. This isn't just a petrol service station on a minor road or in a town, this is a motorway service station which are of massive use and necessity to the millions of drivers who use the UK motorway network each day. Also these services, as they are on the A1(M) are most likely one of the busiest on the network. There are also two hotels at the services which can be added to the article if people think it's too stubbish. Ben W Bell talk 07:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment OK, so it's a big honkin petrol station. Again, we don't have such stub articles for service areas on any number of very busy highways you want to name, like the Illinois Tollway, Indiana Toll Road, or Ontario 401. Sometimes there's lists of service areas (such as in the ON-401). I think your interest in documenting all these motorway details is blurring your perspective a bit. If this trend follows through to its logical conclusion, we're going to wind up with hundreds or thousands of NN stub articles like this. I think this trend should be nipped in the bud now before it really gets silly. JMHO. Tubezone 08:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I wish people would stop nominating these without any apparent knowledge of their significance within British culture. Motorway service stations are not ordinary service areas. Their names are very well-known to British people all over the country - they are not just local institutions. There was even a programme about them on the BBC the other night. Such areas may not be notable within America, but they most certainly are in Britain. Comments like "very ordinary gas station" just show that many people have no actual idea what they're commenting on. -- Necrothesp 09:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Uh, what? Please don't make overblown claims like that. The vast majority of service stations are not notable, even in Britain. I can name... uh... maybe a grand total of one service station, and that's only because I personally stop off there regularly. I certainly can not think of a single "nationally famous" service station or a single service station that is not completely and utterly purely of local interest. — Haeleth Talk 13:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh, I see, you can't name them so they're obviously not notable. Right. That settles it then...Haeleth can only name one service station so obviously they're not notable. A pretty daft argument really, wouldn't you say? I can name at least a dozen off the top of my head, and I'm not a particularly frequent traveller. So who's making the "overblown claims"? -- Necrothesp 23:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have already requested a keep as above but I would refer everyone to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donington Park services where notability in general has been discussed. There are notability elements on the web they just haven't been added in yet. Regan123 10:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "...their significance within British culture. Motorway service stations are not ordinary service areas." Really? Your POV is not a reason to keep. What about the cultural significance of public toilets (maybe every one should get an article) or an article for every UK roadside carwash? Fails proposed WP:LOCAL, I'm feeling Weak delete on this. Amists talk • contribs 10:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry I don't think that quote was by me on here. Anyway WP:LOCAL is to quote not set in stone and should be treated with common sense. I would say there is some cultural significance and corporate notability here. The issue is that the original author added them as link pages which is wrong, but the next question is should we delete stubs simply because they are poor quality at the moment? If that was the case then there would be a mass cull on Wikipedia.Regan123 11:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "Your POV is not a reason to keep". Absolutely true, but it may shock you to learn that neither is yours. And quoting deletion criteria which do not apply, as Ben says, does not make your POV any less of a POV. -- Necrothesp 23:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I don't believe WP:LOCAL can possible apply here anyway, Motorway Services aren't just petrol stations used by local people, they are more commonly used by non-locals, people passing through on long trips. As a result they are know by people up and down the country, not just local people who may not actually use them at all. The Motorway Services on the UK network aren't like the ones you tend to find elsewhere, these are usually large complexes with hotels, restaurants, shops and many other facilities designed to assist and aid motorists on long journeys up and down the nations network. They are very much a part of UK life and are used by millions of people every day. We're not talking a little petrol station in a town used by a couple hundred locals every week, and we're not suggesting making articles about each of them. Many of them are household names, many documentaries have been made about then, even entire series based around the everyday activities of them. Why should articles like Hotel Canberra which is a hotel used by no more than a couple hundred people a day be more notable than something used by thousands, maybe tens of thousands. Ben W Bell talk 11:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I remember seeing a whole truckload of this stuff, so there's plenty of deletable material once this afd goes through. Most of them are very similar to this article. I was tempted to prod these articles when I encountered them being created on RC patrol a week ago. MER-C 10:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Its absolutely non-notable and unencyclopedic. Service stations are virtually non-notable as a category, though I could see the possibility that there may exceptions to this. This, however, is not one of those exceptions. --The Way 11:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable per above: these obviously fail WP:CORP which is the applicable guideline. The argument advanced above that a service station has "significance within British culture" does a great injustice to British culture, no matter how much one feels it has declined. I would support bringing back many of the other individual articles to AfD; a mass nomination was tricky, but on a one by one basis many of these culturally mammoth institutions could be extirpated. Eusebeus 11:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
WP:CORP is not the only applicable guideline and I am not sure what you mean regarding "a great injustice to British culture". Culture isn't just art surely? And there still remains a notability question that has never been answered. See above. Regan123 11:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Culture may not be limited to art, but it isn't a service station. Tens of millions of people see the signs for the turnoff to Heathrow airport. Does that mean prominent road signs are encyclopedic? I personally find the logic advanced above for notability completely fallacious. Eusebeus 13:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but I don't agree that you can compare a service station to a road sign. Here is another comparison: 200,000 people a year use Anerley railway station. That is likely to be reached in a week at many UK service stations. Why is one more notable than another? Why is one deemed appropriate for an article and the other not? Why does two strips of concrete and an out house open around 4 hours a day become encyclopedic and a place used by millions every year not? What is so notable about the railway station that allows it to stay on here and yet a service station is deemed to be so unnotable that it must be deleted? And on culture, yes these are part of the cultural history of the UK, for better or for worse. I personally spend as little time as possible at service stations, but they were once gleaming symbols of modernity in transportation (I know it is hard to believe). Regan123 14:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Er, no, but Heathrow Airport is. I think you should try comparing like with like. We're talking about the thing the sign points to, not the sign itself. -- Necrothesp 23:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, simply not notable. Sorry. Even if it did have the first microwave oven in Europe or whatever this supposed claim of notability is, it still is not a viable subject for an encyclopedia article. — Haeleth Talk 13:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I have seen nothing in the guidelines that would not allow this to be notable. Please see my point above. Thanks. Regan123 14:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The keepers are correct (up to a point) in that we shouldn't be comparing these to gas stations: they're more similar to a rest stop or truck stop. But they're still not something we can have individual articles on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - While I don't think this kind of article belongs, I have no real background in this, so I can only go from policy. That being said, applying notability when some people here voting are comparing these to SERVICE STATIONS (which they clearly are not) can only generate at best a weak delete. The better guideline would be WP:LOCAL than WP:CORP, I think. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 17:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the article lack verification to establish its importance or notability.-- danntm T C 18:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless we want articles on Joe's Esso or something. If anything is worth salvaging (probably not), it could be incorporated into A1 road. Kirjtc2 19:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Service stations are not necessariyl linked to individual roads, however, some are on multiple - therefore by putting ones like this into the road article (which would be the A1), and ones like south mimms which aren't on an individual road (it's on three), it becomes confusing as to where the articles might be found. Furthermore, this article and articles like these aren't like Joes Esso on the relief road... they're actually created at the time the special orders are passed for the motorway or afterwards as they're specified by the government - you can't just come along and build one anywhere. It's also interesting that Railway Stations and airports are deemed to be automatically notable while motorway service areas are not, which seems to be a very perculiar (political?) ruling - could someone direct me to the page where this was discussed and deemed to be the case, as I'm sure the same reasoning could apply to motorway service areas as applies to railway stations.... As far as I'm aware there's absolutely nothing of significance about either (for example) Bayford or Crews Hill stations that could not be included on the 'locality' page about the villages.... whereas Motorway Service areas exist independently of location (they may be near none, and those that are near towns or village have nothing in common with the town/village, so probably don't belong on the pages for the town or village), and as stated previously I don't think they really belong on the motorway pages either; the A1 page, for instance would become incredibly crowded with information about the motorway sections, the historical sections, the different routes as the road has evolved over time.... Having said that, I've got better things to do with my time than argue over the deletion of stubs, as they're fairly easy to put back again once sufficient information on them is found (o; C2r 20:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I see a lot of argument that services are notable as a big part of British culture. I don't know if that is true or not. But what makes this particular service stand apart? Where are the independently published articles about it? For me, it simply fails WP:V -- Whpq 21:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge This is not a vote to delete - we need to find a solution. Merge to what? Perhaps I'll need to create the solution. This article needs improving, since those who have never been to it can't get a sense of it from the article. These are multi-business landmarks on the motorway network. Not gas stations. The comparison with rail stations is close. But does each still need their own article? I think better to create one big article describing these in general, with a list of them perhaps as a sub article. There are not that many of this size in Britain - I think one article or two might work. Or perhaps one artcle for each major motor way. We need a place to work this out, not to argue about deleting.Obina 22:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
How about each major motorway just having a list, like, say List of service areas on the A1 and A1 (M). No doubt these are areas with multiple business generating multi-millions of pounds, but so are shopping centres and many US tollway service areas, and not all them are notable, either. The argument that railway stations each get their own article doesn't hold water, not all railway stations do get their own article, and not all should get their own article, however, (a) there's already been a precedent set in the case of RR stations, and (b) Generally, there's only one railway station in each town or neighborhood, and they're often a transportation hub, rather than a stopoff. Many railway stations are historically or architecurally significant, few service stations or service areas are. (Some railfans have their own bent perspective on the importance of railway minituae as well)
The problem with that solution is you'll end up with articles that are just the same. The reason being that motorway services are actually not that common and the vast majority of motorways only have 1 MSA on them. The M2, M20, M27 (I think) only have one on their entire length, even the M25 only has two Motorway Services (I think. It could be three but I'm not sure). Some motorways don't have any. So you'd end up moving them to articles with different titles but end up with the same information in them and the same arguments. However maybe there is a solution that involves combining them together in some form, and redirecting from the individual names, I just can't think of the best way to do that. Ben W Bell talk 07:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
According to the WP articles, between Moto, Welcome Break and RoadChef, there's seventy-three MSA's in the UK. For a country that's not much bigger than my state (Illinois), that's a lot of MSA's! Why not stick a list of MSA's under the individual operator articles? They're all basically stubs with plenty of room for a list. Just an idea. Tubezone 08:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I've seen plenty of comments about the cultural significance of MSA's in the UK, but I still haven't seen much said about why they'd would be more culturally more significant than the same kinds of facilities in other countries. Tubezone 23:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, since the people wanting to keep are predominantly British, that's not really a useful question. As a Briton, I don't know whether articles on service stations in other countries are worth keeping or not, which is why I wouldn't express an uninformed opinion on them in an AfD basing their worth on the perceived worth of similar (but probably not identical) facilities in my own country (comments like "it's just a big gas station" just go to show that many people commenting here don't actually know much about the subject at hand). Why should we be comparing them with service stations elsewhere? That's not the issue at all; the issue is their significance in their own milieu, not somebody else's. -- Necrothesp 00:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, this is the English language Wikipedia, not the British Wikipedia, so how this all fits in the overall WP context does count, at least IMHO. I'm still a little puzzled as to why these are considered notable in their own milieu. It's not like Britain isn't loaded to the gills with notable places and structures (it is). Also, if someone later decides to put up similar articles in other countries, they're going to point to this kind of article out as an example to justify it. Whatever, I've said my tuppence worth, I'll shut up now. Tubezone 08:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
You're completely misinterpreting what I said. I can't compare British service stations to American service stations because I have no knowledge of American service stations. All I can do is give my opinion as to the significance of British service stations in British culture, not how they compare to vaguely related institutions in other countries. To ask me (or anyone else) to compare them to something I/we know nothing about is ridiculous. But I do know how significant they are to many people in Britain, and how well-known many of them are. A lot of people here seem to be comparing them to ordinary "gas stations" or diners, and that's not what they are. Coincidentally, here's an article about them that featured on the BBC News website today, which highlights a particular service station. Are there articles about American service stations on national American news? And anyway, of course subjects' significance in their own milieu counts; American state representatives have absolutely no impact on or interest to most people outside the USA, or even their own state, for instance, but they still all have their own articles, as justified by WP:BIO. -- Necrothesp 17:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I think there really needs to be a substantive discussion on an overall policy on inclusion of waysides, MSA's, tollway oases and roadside whatnot, as there is on railway stations, see: User:Mangoe/Wikipedia is not a timetable. I would note in the tollway oasis article, one of the first things that's said about them is that they're similar to British MSA's, which is the impression I also had when I visited an MSA. The first line of the BBC article is Motorway service stations have become a byword for bad food at top prices, a charge that was levelled in the past at tollway oases, too. (Now they have McDonalds, which is some improvement) Yes, some gas stations, truck stops and so forth get media mentions in the USA if they're notable, eg: Dixie Truckers Home. BTW, many state legislators in the US don't have articles, and IMHO, few deserve one, either, despite WP:BIO. British peers automatically get in, too. Lastly, at this point, Motorway service area redirects to "Rest area", which really isn't the right place for an article on MSA's, if you ask me. Tubezone 19:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Whether state legislators deserve articles or not is not actually the point - under WP:BIO they are allowed to have them, no questions asked. British peers, incidentally, are national legislators. British service stations have McDonalds/KFC/Burger Kings too - it's no improvement! -- Necrothesp 02:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Even if these service stations are culturally significant in the UK (as their supporters argue they are, despite the lack of solid references), that still doesn't make this particular service station notable. Delete (and create Cultural significance of motorway service stations in the United Kingdom if you think it's notable and you can reference it). Demiurge 13:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There seems to be some consensus growing to fix - it seems to me a consensus to move away from 73 articles. We need to together find a great solution. What if we create 3 articles - one each for the main suppliers - and perhaps one on the cultural impact. This particular page can become a redirect (not delete). Two extra comments. Look what was on the BBC today NEWS. As this source shows, this is a government issue to fix - imagine if Nancy P was speaking on interstate rest areas. And forget the comparison with Illinois area. The UK is 1/4 the population of the USA.Obina 14:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to United Kingdom motorway service areas I would say that motorway services are probably as notable as the numerious railways station articles (say Jordanhill railway station). However for the most part they are not that interesting. Theres a lot which could be said about them as a class, which would be distinct from US varients. --Salix alba (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • There used to be a UK MSA article, but it got merged into the general Rest Area article. It might be worth considering a demerge and reinstating the UK specific article. MarkSG 15:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
      • But why? I still don't see how they're any different from the service areas on Highway 401 or the New Jersey Turnpike. Kirjtc2 15:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, I only said it "might be" worth considering - I'm not making a definite argument in favour of doing it yet. But it's a suggestion which might be suitable as a compromise here, as it gives a place for all the information in these stubs to find a natural home without having to delete it altogether.
        • Having said that, I think there are good reasons for demerging it from Rest Area. For a start, an MSA is a very specific type of Rest Area, which operates under specific government guidelines and regulations. It's not just a big gas station on a major road - it's part of the UK motorway infrastructure. The current Rest Area article is somewhat misleading, in that it implies that MSAs are what Brits call facilities that elsewhere would be called a Rest Area, when in fact they are more specific than that. It's a bit like having an article on roads which suggests that "Interstate" is what Americans call roads that elsewhere are called "major roads" - sure, an I-road is a major road, but it's more than just being major that makes it significant. An MSA is a subset of rest areas, rather than just being the British name for them. And, as far as I'm aware, the UK concept of a motorway service area is unique - one of the things that makes them controversial in the UK is because they are regulated in a way that equivalent facilites elsewhere, such as the US and mainland Europe, are not. So, taken as a group, they would satisfy the Wikipedia requirements for notability even if an individual site would not. MarkSG 15:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Not all of them are worthy of article. I do not know about Washington, but I am not convinced that WP:LOCAL would necessarily apply. Firstly because some of these are enormous franchises granted by the government, and their existence can be verified on every UK road map. These are often much more than service stations, sometimes incorporating shops, restaurants (sometimes with starbucks, mcdonalds) and motels. They may belong to chains such as Granada, but whole motorway service network of motorway services are not under single ownership. We are now seeing a proliferation of articles on shopping malls, where we already see very passionate debates about their notability or otherwise, MSA may well fall into this category should we perhaps draw up a guideline called "WP:MALL" to cover these? ;-) As most of these articles are pretty much stubs, they could be merged and populated if people think worthwhile. Per above debate, it may be useful to have these as sections in the relevant motorway, or include them as part of the relevant franchisee, with a navigational page List of United Kingdom motorway service areas. I would like to see a MERGE, probably to the relevant motorway Ohconfucius 03:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Serves us right for letting the schools groupies get away with it. WMMartin 17:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, WP:V. No assertion of either with any reliable sources. - Mailer Diablo 16:49, 22 November 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Washington_services_12bf.html"