- 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
London Buses route 74
- London Buses route 74 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable bus-route, with neither a claim to notability nor any evidence of notability per WP:GNG.
I PRODded it, but the PROD was contested on the grounds of a pre-existing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport. However, the assessments in that discussion seem pretty shoddy. For example, this comment praises London Buses route 187, but I see no evidence there of notability.
The editor who removed this PROD also contested a series of PRODs for West Midlands bus routes for which there was no evidence of notability. If WikiProjects don't follow accepted standards of notability, then editors really do not have valid grounds for complaint that community-wide forums are used to remove non-notable material. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural keep for now, there is already ongoing discussion on this elsewhere, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#London bus route articles. These AfD's certianly don't help the process users are currently going through to determine which articles are notable and which aren't. Nominator is currently refusing to take part in said discussion, instead choosing to continue to make these pointy nominations. Jeni (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeni, you have contested a whole series of PRODs on bus routes without offering any valid grounds for keeping the articles. I am not trying to male any point, just trying to remove non-notable material, and being confronted with wikilawyering opposition. If you disrupt the use of a lightweight mechanism like PROD, don't complain that a an article then gets taken to AFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am complaining that you are refusing to take part in an existing discussion on this very subject, instead you are mass AfD'ing articles, when there is already a process of sorting out the notable and non notable ones on the discussion page linked above. That is very pointy if you ask me. Jeni (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeni, you have contested a whole series of PRODs on bus routes without offering any valid grounds for keeping the articles. I am not trying to male any point, just trying to remove non-notable material, and being confronted with wikilawyering opposition. If you disrupt the use of a lightweight mechanism like PROD, don't complain that a an article then gets taken to AFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly is your reason for objecting to the deletion of this article? Do you have any evidence of notability? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My reason for objecting is procedural, as I said in my first comment. Participate in the discussion (and dare I say it, even help out!) and your input would be much much more useful. Jeni (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop disrupting this use of the deletion process for the very small proportion of the mass of non-notable bus route articles, and you might actually be doing something useful.
- So, I'll ask again. What exactly is your reason for objecting to the deletion of this article? Do you have any evidence of notability? --23:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- My reason for objecting is procedural, as I said in my first comment. Participate in the discussion (and dare I say it, even help out!) and your input would be much much more useful. Jeni (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your reasons for removing the West Midlands PRODs were that you asserted notability for those bus routes, even tho there was no evidence of notability and no claim of notability. Those reasons were indeed clear: clearly nonsense. If you think that this is a notable bus route, it's little wonder that you don't want the wider community to scrutinise the notability of any such articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly is your reason for objecting to the deletion of this article? Do you have any evidence of notability? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on its own merits. All established bus routes are major features of the local geography, and if an article can be written, it should be; whether they are better merged is a question of style. The information is encyclopedic - — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
- Procedural keep – since there is an on-going discussion elsewhere, please withdraw discussion to that location. The article can be renominated, if necessary, after the conclusion of the current discussion. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Oops, missed this one. Essentially per BrownHairedGirl. GNG is an important guideline and shouldn't discarded lightly. It is important for good reason. Without significant coverage in reliable sources, it is usually impossible to have an encyclopaedic article about a subject that is properly verified. These bus route articles are a case in point: they are littered with original research and for all we know could be totally inaccurate. The reason they are littered with original research is because the reliable sources aren't there. For that reason, the original research is fatal and unsalvageable.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I can't for the life of me understand how deleting this article would improve this encyclopedia, which is supposed to be what we are doing here. This is a bus route used by thousands of people every day (I used it myself in my younger days when I lived in Inner London) and the content is clearly verifiable and non-contentious. I note that many other similar articles have been nominated for deletion, but I don't have the time or inclination to comment on each one individually. I suppose that means that the nominator wins the war of attrition by being willing to spend more effort on destroying content than I am on preserving it. Can't we just concentrate on building this encyclopedia, and, when necessary, getting rid of articles about garage bands and the like, rather than destroying information that is part of our mission. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A practical way of overcoming vexatious nomination spam is to ban their creator and then the nominations can all be speedily terminated as the work of a banned editor. Something of the sort was done with TTN iirc. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep The nomination is false as a quick search shows that this route has great notability, being noted in numerous sources for its use of the Bus Electronic Scanning Indicator. We also observe that the nominator has failed to discuss the article at its talk page. nor does there seem to have been any effort to consider alternatives to deletion. It is thus appears that our deletion process has not been followed and so the nomination seems disruptive, as noted by other editors above. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how this meets the speedy keep guideline. What most certainly is disruptive is copying and pasting the same message onto several AfDs without even considering the article in question, but rather making unfounded allegations about the nominator. Aiken ♫ 23:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:SK: "obviously frivolous or vexatious nominations". Colonel Warden (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But it isn't obviously either of those things. Far from frivolous, at least one other user has voted to delete, so it shows a discussion is necessary. And as for vexatious, well, I think people need to remember that the contributions they make belong to the encyclopedia, and should not take things personally. Again, I think making unfounded allegations about the intent of the nominator is both disruptive and rude. You're free to comment, but a productive comment would be one that actually discusses whether the article is notable or not. Thanks. Aiken ♫ 23:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Colonel Warden, this is neither a frivolous or a vexatious nomination. Have you ever read WP:AGF and WP:NPA? Try to comment on content, not contributors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is frivolous in that a quick search immediately produces numerous substantial sources as one would expect for a major transportation route through the centre of London. It is vexatious in that the nomination has been made without preparing the ground properly per WP:BEFORE. The article's issues should first be discussed at its talk page and/or by tagging and this has not been done. Alternatives to deletion should be considered such as merger into higher-level articles such as London bus or London Transport. These actions are mandated by our deletion process to minimise the disruption which attends AFD. When these failure occur en masse, the nuisance is multiplied because the size of the remedial task becomes daunting and so there is a chilling effect. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Substantial sources"?????????
I have looked at the references you have added, and see no sign whatsoever that any of them provide any substantial coverage. For example, from one of the references you managed to extract the information that "The route includes Baker Street"; from another you produce the factoid that "It is used by London commuters".
Fancy that, eh? A route running into central London is used by commuters?
Sorry, but the only "frivolous" thing I see here is your bizarre assertion that a passing mention is "substantial coverage". ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) •
- "Substantial sources"?????????
(contribs)
- That details may seem obvious is unimportant. The routing down Baker Street is significant as numerous sources take the trouble to say this. The usage by commuters is relevant to those who know nothing of London. I expect that, as the topic develops, we will be able to report the comparative usage by other types of passenger - shoppers, tourists &c. Such aspects seem important to a good understanding of the topic. That the article is a work-in-progress and has not yet been fully fleshed out is not a reason to delete, per our editing policy. Idle criticism is not helpful - please see WP:INSPECTOR. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CW, idle abuse of good faith editors is not helpful either, so please try to focus on the issue at stake. The decision to be made here is whether or not to delete the article. The test here is not whether the text is complete, but whether the topic meets WP:GNG, for which we need "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
You have denounced the nomination "as frivolous and vexatious", and claim to have found sources which meet that test of "substantial coverage". So where is this "substantial coverage" you have found? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CW, idle abuse of good faith editors is not helpful either, so please try to focus on the issue at stake. The decision to be made here is whether or not to delete the article. The test here is not whether the text is complete, but whether the topic meets WP:GNG, for which we need "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
- Note that the similar case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 73 has now been speedily kept. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable enough for a standalone article, sources are basically lists that contain this route. --John Nagle (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There seems to be enough to justify keeping this one, although I don't agree with the "Disruptive nomination" viewpoint. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep useful article that meets GNG as long as its interpreted generously. On the disurptive view, have to agree that refusing to take part in discussions while instead making pointy noms for deletion is not ideal conduct on a collaborative project. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable third party sources - name drops only. Karanacs (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At last count you'd added this exact comment to 14 London Bus Route AfDs. I can understand it in many cases, but it doesn't seem to apply here. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Copy and paste vote, he wont have actually looked at the articles he is commenting against. Jeni (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree, except that his/her vote at WP:Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus route 1 (Birmingham) actually suggests keeping one of the articles! Alzarian16 (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At last count you'd added this exact comment to 14 London Bus Route AfDs. I can understand it in many cases, but it doesn't seem to apply here. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all information contained in this article is verifiable. The majority of London bus routes are notable, and the system is notable. Dew Kane (talk) 04:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Long established route. All info can be sourced. Arriva436talk/contribs 16:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Appears to have a rich history, with sources for all the information provided. Editor5807speak 18:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- strong keep or in the alternative, merge, per editor5807 and arriva346. Thanks. Okip 16:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Colonel Warden's find proves notability. [1] Dream Focus 19:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Perhaps someone can cite for me some notable London bus routes, and explain how they are different from route 74. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2010 (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.
- 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 - there's certainly no consensus to delete this, and that's unlikely to change. I suppose it may be debatable as to whether there's a "consensus to keep", but it is evident that you could afd this 25 times and no consensus to delete will emerge. Looks like the considered position (unless something major changes) is that articles with such fairly low-notability but solid verification get kept. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
London Buses route 75
- London Buses route 75 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable bus-route, with neither a claim to notability nor any evidence of notability per WP:GNG.
I PRODded it, but the PROD was contested on the grounds of a pre-existing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport. However, the assessments in that discussion seem pretty shoddy. For example, this comment praises London Buses route 187, but I see no evidence there of notability. Meanwhile, Jeni contested a series of PRODs for West Midlands bus routes for which there was no evidence of notability. If WikiProjects don't follow accepted standards of notability, then editors really do not have valid grounds for complaint that community-wide forums are used to remove non-notable material. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural keep for now, there is already ongoing discussion on this elsewhere, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#London bus route articles. These AfD's certianly don't help the process users are currently going through to determine which articles are notable and which aren't. Nominator is currently refusing to take part in said discussion, instead choosing to continue to make these pointy nominations.Jeni (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeni, you have contested a whole series of PRODs on bus routes without offering any valid grounds for keeping the articles. I am not trying to make any point, just trying to remove non-notable material, and am being confronted with wikilawyering opposition from you. If you disrupt the use of a lightweight mechanism like PROD, don't complain that an article then gets taken to AFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am complaining that you are refusing to take part in an existing discussion on this very subject, instead you are mass AfD'ing articles, when there is already a process of sorting out the notable and non notable ones on the discussion page linked above. That is very pointy if you ask me. Jeni (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeni, I AFDed 6 articles I found in a first sample, and then PRODded 13 I found in a second sample. You reverted all the AFDs on sight, without any remotely plausible grounds for keeping the articles, so I will now bring those PRODs to AFD. That will take time, and after I have finished that I will see whether I have time for the discussion. If you actually want a discussion, stop disrupting the cleanup by your pointy removal of all PRODs when there are no grounds for keeping the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet you seem to think that there is some sort of urgency in all of this? Why must you be AfDing right now? What is stopping you from taking part in this discussion? Why are you refusing to redirect articles, like has been done with (probably about 50 or so) London articles already? I'm known for my ruthlessness when it comes to getting rid of bus route articles, but I can't be doing with people being disruptive. Jeni (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeni, I AFDed 6 articles I found in a first sample, and then PRODded 13 I found in a second sample. You reverted all the AFDs on sight, without any remotely plausible grounds for keeping the articles, so I will now bring those PRODs to AFD. That will take time, and after I have finished that I will see whether I have time for the discussion. If you actually want a discussion, stop disrupting the cleanup by your pointy removal of all PRODs when there are no grounds for keeping the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am complaining that you are refusing to take part in an existing discussion on this very subject, instead you are mass AfD'ing articles, when there is already a process of sorting out the notable and non notable ones on the discussion page linked above. That is very pointy if you ask me. Jeni (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeni, you have contested a whole series of PRODs on bus routes without offering any valid grounds for keeping the articles. I am not trying to make any point, just trying to remove non-notable material, and am being confronted with wikilawyering opposition from you. If you disrupt the use of a lightweight mechanism like PROD, don't complain that an article then gets taken to AFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no urgency: AFD discussions last for 7 days, so take your time.
- Why do you object to deletion of articles on non-notable topics?
- Instead of allowing the community to assess the notability of articles, you are disrupting the deletion process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those discussions can continue. There is no disruption of them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural keep – since there is an on-going discussion elsewhere, please withdraw discussion to that location. The article can be renominated, if necessary, after the conclusion of the current discussion. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on its own merits. All established bus routes are major features of the local geography, and if an article can be written, it should be; whether they are better merged is a question of style. The information is encyclopedic. And I do think that trying to preempt a general discussion by multiple AFDS is not a good way to handle things--it makes discussion harder and increases the chance of arbitrary and inconsistent results. ditto about repeated asking people here for explanations do not have the same opinion as oneself. If people look at these articles and decide that they want to keep them, that makes a practical policy of exception to the GNG. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Notability offers another way only where there are agreed separate guidelines.
- There is a very good practical reason for GNG: that it is an inevitable consequence of the core policy WP:V. Without it, an article can exist only as either original research or as repetition of primary source material.
- In the case of these articles, most of the material is simply unsourced, a situation which is all too common with topics which fail GNG. This article is a good example of that: it has no footnotes, and there is no indication of whether the content is from primary sources, or some unreliable source, or is just something made up. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Oops, missed this one. Essentially per BrownHairedGirl. GNG is an important guideline and shouldn't discarded lightly. It is important for good reason. Without significant coverage in reliable sources, it is usually impossible to have an encyclopaedic article about a subject that is properly verified. These bus route articles are a case in point: they are littered with original research and for all we know could be totally inaccurate. The reason they are littered with original research is because the reliable sources aren't there. For that reason, the original research is fatal and unsalvageable.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Significant coverage here, here, here and, more substantially but less reliably, here. Timetable available here. Together these seem to be enough to verify the article and meet WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Only two of those sources are both reliable and independent of the subject.
- The croydontoday story is about bus drivers parking disruptively outside a depot. The problem arise out of route 75 operations being moved there, but it's really an article about the Beddington Lane depot, rather than about route 75.
- The sex assaults on bus 75 story is more directly about the bus route, but it's still marginal: a short article, which is substantially about the attacks rather than the route. That article suggests to me that the attacks might be a notable topic, rather than that the bus route is notable, because it feels like a WP:BIO1E issue (where the general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Disruptive deletion spree made without due diligence per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 74. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did indeed follow WP:BEFORE. I do not claim to have perfectly checked for every possible source, and an exhaustive trawl is not required by WP:BEFORE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete or redirect. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources. If someone wants to keep this article they might want to start assuming good faith and provide actual sources.--Crossmr (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone did, me. I've repeatedly stated that I have no problem with the AfD nominations, and I provided links to five potential online sources. Many of these were proved not to show notability, so I wasn't especially successful, but I dislike the fact that you use Colonel Warden's comment as the basis for a general comment on the behaviour of Keep voters. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per DGG and Alzarian. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable third party sources - name drops only. Karanacs (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all information contained in this article is verifiable. The majority of London bus routes are notable, and the system is notable. Dew Kane (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have started the process of sourcing from the many volumes of reliable sources which document the history of this route in detail. Comments above which are based upon the lack of sources are thus obsolete. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:41, 5 April 2010 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to 2010 FIFA World Cup. Tone 15:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2010 FIFA World Cup training venues
- 2010 FIFA World Cup training venues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A list of training venues for the 2010 FIFA World Cup is not necessary. These venues play no significant part in the competition, they are simply where teams are based for the duration. – PeeJay 23:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – PeeJay 23:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - Though it may seem unnecessary, I believe we should merge it with a parent article (i.e. 2010 FIFA World Cup) and a section "Training Areas". 76.71.122.138 (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge agree the information should be included within the main article or another existing sub-article; can't see the need for a standalone page on this. Eldumpo (talk) 09:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to 2010 FIFA World Cup or Delete altogether. Personally, I don't see this information as being particularly relevent even in the context of the World Cup. However if it is deemed to be, it certainly isn't notable enough to merit its own article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2010 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of airlines of Canada. Content of article exists at List of defunct airlines of Canada. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of airlines of New Brunswick
- List of airlines of New Brunswick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article says that there are no airlines of New Brunswick. Therefore should not be made until there are airlines. Whenaxis (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article is pointless. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 23:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If there are no airlines, then there shouldn't be an article on them.Dinosaur Dan1 (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G1 "no meaningful content". Articles which say "this topic does not exist" are a waste of the reader's time.
However, I can see why this list was created: the navigation template is created by a generic template: {{Canada topic|List of airlines of}}, and it links to all states regardless of whether there are articles. That template should really use #ifexist: tests to avoid generating permanent redlinks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Completely and utterly pointless page. If something doesn't exist, then we shouldn't have a page that says as much. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per no meaningful content. Howan (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I added a notable defunct airline. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.
- Keep, given that an airline has been found and it's no longer empty. I don't know if it counts as an "airline" or not, but Forest Protection Limited (the people who do the aerial photography, crop spraying, area searches etc) are based in New Brunswick as well. – iridescent 11:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As the nominator, we should actually keep the defunct airlines in the List of defunct airlines of Canada or we have to add defunct airlines to the other list of airlines lists.. Whenaxis (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we really need any "List of airlines by individual state or province within a country which already has a country-level list anyway" articles? YMMV, I suppose, but I don't think we do; the physical location of the head office doesn't constitute a meaningful or encyclopedic distinction between two airlines operating in the same country. Delete all "airlines by subnational division" lists. Bearcat (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would you do that for? Then you have to delete articles for the couple of states in the U.S.A:
List of airlines in Alaska, List of airlines in Hawaii and the categories in Category:Airlines of the United States, you have to delete the articles in Canada as well. Whenaxis (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While these sort of lists can be relevant if there are actually a significant number of airlines based in a province, they become somewhat pointless when there's only two defunct airlines and no current ones. If a list is to be relevant, there need to be more than two actual items in that list. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 02:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect this and similar lists to List of airlines of Canada. I don't see the need for these spinouts, especially articles that are almost empty. ThemFromSpace 05:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But you don't get it! List of airlines of New Brunswick is the only list that it is 'almost' empty. The rest of them have long enough lists and notable airlines. Whenaxis (talk) 10:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? List of airlines of Prince Edward Island only has one airline, and List of airlines of Nova Scotia and List of airlines of Yukon only have two. Those are hardly substantial lists either. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 16:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but List of airlines of Nova Scotia has a notable airline: Air Canada Jazz and List of airlines of Yukon has a notable airline which is well known in the Canadian north: Air North, however, Prince Edward Island is questionable. But New Brunswick is even worse than these, no current airlines and only defunct airlines, at least these ones have airlines assigned. Whenaxis (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One very notable airline and one not-so-notable airline still isn't exactly justification for a list in either of those two cases. All of the short lists are probably better off being merged, but I agree that the New Brunswick list is a bit more exceptional in its insignificance. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 21:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Iridescent. Changes to the article have made it reasonable to keep. Outback the Koala (talk) 09:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It seems like WP:OTHERCRAP is being used to try and get this deleted. It could use a bit of stylizing to make it look better and that won't take much. Table the current listings and added notes about when those two particular airlines were in operation, that would enhance the article. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 10:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of airlines of Canada. Dew Kane (talk) 05:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of airlines of Canada it is not that big a list, if really needed a province column could be added. MilborneOne (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2010 (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.
- 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
West Midlands bus route 7
- West Midlands bus route 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another non-notable bus-route. The article includes neither a claim to notability nor any thing which could be even be considered as possible evidence that this route meets WP:GNG's test of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". (The article has no references, and links only to the bus company's website and a photo website).
This article was WP:PRODded two days ago, but the PROD was contested on the grounds that "West Midlands bus routes have already been pruned down leaving the notable ones remaining". It's a pity that the editor who contested the PROD was not better informed about Wikipedia:Notability, because the lack of evidence in the article suggests that this bus route has zero notability. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - After discussions last year at WT:UKBRQDRIVE this was one of the few West Midlands routed deemed to be notable enough to deserve an article. Other non notable routes were redirected at the time. Jeni (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On what bizarre grounds did that discussion "deem" this topic notable enough to deserve an article, when there is no evidence of any notability? Did the participants in that discussion even read WP:GNG?
- We don't need assertions of notability. We need evidence of it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Followup: I found it later. It seems that some editors at WikiProject buses have drawn up a set of guidelines which completely ignores GNG: see Wikipedia:UKBRQDRIVE#What qualifies as a route notable for an article.3F. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on its own merits. All established bus routes are major features of the local geography, and if an article can be written, it should be; whether they are better merged is a question of style. The information is encyclopedic. And I do think that trying to preempt a general discussion by multiple AFDS is not a good way to handle things--it makes discussion harder and increases the chance of arbitrary and inconsistent results. All the more so about using prods as if the deletion would really be uncontroversial, and then blaming people when they remove them as they have every right to do. ditto about repeated asking people here for explanations do not have the same opinion as oneself. I don't think calling other people's arguments bizarre really helps resolve an issue. If people look at these articles and decide that they want to keep them, that makes a practical policy of exception to the GNG. DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Notability offers another way only where there are agreed separate guidelines.
- There is a very good practical reason for GNG: that it is an inevitable consequence of the core policy WP:V. Without it, an article can exist only as either original research or as repetition of primary source material.
- In the case of these articles, most of the material is simply unsourced, a situation which is all too common with topics which fail GNG. This article is a good example of that: it has no footnotes, and there is no indication of whether the content is from primary sources, or some unreliable source, or is just something made up. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Oops, missed this one. Essentially per BrownHairedGirl. GNG is an important guideline and shouldn't discarded lightly. It is important for good reason. Without significant coverage in reliable sources, it is usually impossible to have an encyclopaedic article about a subject that is properly verified. These bus route articles are a case in point: they are littered with original research and for all we know could be totally inaccurate. The reason they are littered with original research is because the reliable sources aren't there. For that reason, the original research is fatal and unsalvageable.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Basically as per DGG and Jeni's reasons plus the fact that this route was effectivly the last West Midlands route to be operated in public service by MCW Metrobuses (even though they still operate on School Contracts. Dudleybus 11:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- That's a factoid which can mentioned in a list or in the article on MCW Metrobuses. Even if verified, it does not amount to evidence of notability unless it has led to substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) •
- Conditional keep if sources back up Dudleybus' claim and what's already in the article. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC
- Delete This article fails to meet our general notability guideline. It does not assert notability and does note cite any third-party reliable sources that attest notability. MRSC (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. Orderinchaos 17:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable third party sources - name drops only. Karanacs (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep since information on the bus route is verifiable, and can be sourced. Dew Kane (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom & the above. For the record, I disagree with the notion put forward by DGG that somehow the GNG is a decorative gewgaw, especially when its precepts run counter to his own personal philosophy regarding criteria for content inclusion. David, I know we differ, but I usually expect to see an argument from you for retention. Significant coverage from reliable, independent sources, David! Surely we can agree on that fundamental criterion! Eusebeus (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2010 (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.
- 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
West Midlands bus route 33
- West Midlands bus route 33 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable bus route.
There is no evidence that this route meets WP:GNG's test of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject": the article has no footnotes, and only two external links: one to the bus company's website, and one to a picture site. Neither is relevant to WP:GNG.
This article was PRODded a few days ago, but the proposed deletion was contested on the grounds that "West Midlands bus routes have already been pruned down leaving the notable ones remaining". If this is one of the more notable routes, I dread to think how obscure the others are, but I see no evidence of notability. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - After discussions last year at WT:UKBRQDRIVE this was one of the few West Midlands routed deemed to be notable enough to deserve an article. Other non notable routes were redirected at the time. Jeni (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeni, if this article is to be kept, we don't need assertions, we need evidence of how the route meets WP:GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on its own merits. All established bus routes are major features of the local geography, and if an article can be written, it should be; whether they are better merged is a question of style. The information is encyclopedic. If people look at these articles and decide that they want to keep them, that makes a practical policy of exception to the GNG. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Notability offers another way only where there are agreed separate guidelines.
- There is a very good practical reason for GNG: that it is an inevitable consequence of the core policy WP:V. Without it, an article can exist only as either original research or as repetition of primary source material.
- In the case of these articles, most of the material is simply unsourced, a situation which is all too common with topics which fail GNG. This article is a good example of that: it has no footnotes, and there is no indication of whether the content is from primary sources, or some unreliable source, or is just something made up.
- And if someone can look at unsourced article and say "keep because I like it", why do we we bother with notability guidelines at all? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oops, missed this one. Essentially per BrownHairedGirl. GNG is an important guideline and shouldn't discarded lightly. It is important for good reason. Without significant coverage in reliable sources, it is usually impossible to have an encyclopaedic article about a subject that is properly verified. These bus route articles are a case in point: they are littered with original research and for all we know could be totally inaccurate. The reason they are littered with original research is because the reliable sources aren't there. For that reason, the original research is fatal and unsalvageable.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This bus route was one of the first "Showcase" routes (i.e. The forerunner to the current "Partnership" routes) between an Operator, this case being Travel West Midlands and a Transport Authority, this being The West Midlands Passenger Transport Authority/Centro. Press articles should be able to be found as it is Note-worthy on Wikipedia. They are not only original research but notible because of press releases from the companies involved and also the fact that litriture is available. Me, DudleybusMyself and I 11:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The "Showcase Route" thing would be great if it had received any sort of coverage, but I can't find a single source to back it up. What's left if we remove that is nowhere near notable. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article fails to meet our general notability guideline. It does not assert notability, having branding is not the same as notability, and does note cite any third-party reliable sources that attest notability. MRSC (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Not notable. Orderinchaos 17:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable third party sources - name drops only. Karanacs (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep since information on the bus route is verifiable, and can be sourced. Dew Kane (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as there is simply nothing to suggest notability. Aiken ♫ 15:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While I still support this being kept, even if the majority say delete, it should be merged to a parent article, and the edit history retained, so in the future, someone can dig up what is already written in an old version, and improve upon it. Dew Kane (talk) 04:30, 4 April 2010 (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.
- 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 as per consensus and the absence of deletion calls beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
West Midlands bus routes 51, X51 and 951A
- West Midlands bus routes 51, X51 and 951A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No asertion of notability, and no evidence of notability per WP:GNG's test of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
This article was PRODded a few days ago, and the PROD was contested on the grounds that "this one at least has some route-history". Even if that route history had some references (it's quite detailed but entirely unsourced), a route history is no evidence of notability. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - After discussions last year at WT:UKBRQDRIVE this was one of the few West Midlands routed deemed to be notable enough to deserve an article. Other non notable routes were redirected at the time. Jeni (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeni, if this article is to be kept, we don't need assertions, we need evidence of how the route meets WP:GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable and historic. There are plenty of references for this; we shouldn't delete just because on-one's had time to copy them to Wikipedia yet. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Agree with Jeni and Andy's points. This is a historic and therefore valuble bus route article. If this goes then surely the articles for ALL bus routes in London MUST go. Dudleybus 11:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- "References probably can be found somewhere" is not exactly how WP:V works.
- Nor is age; plenty of things have been around for a long time without being notable, like the street I live on.
- And I think we agree that nearly all the London bus route articles should go, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep but some independent sources asserting notability should be added soon, otherwise it's quite likely to fail a future AfD. Orderinchaos 17:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep since information on the bus route is verifiable, and can be sourced. Dew Kane (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep' on the same basis as my argument for the others: significant features of human geography. DGG ( talk ) 21:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems to be an acknowledgement that it doesn't meet the existing criteria at WP:GNG, and a plea for a new exemption from the GNG for bus routes. If DGG wants to argue for such an exemption, a proposal should be made at WT:N. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:31, 3 April 2010 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of Charmed characters#Crone, the. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Crone (Charmed)
- Crone (Charmed) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A minor villain in Charmed, only appeared in TWO episodes. Not enough for a separate article. Blueboy96 22:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Charmed characters#Crone, the, which already sufficiently covers this very minor character. Glenfarclas (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Glenfarclas.~ZytheTalk to me! 10:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per User:Glenfarclas. List of Charmed characters#Crone, the has the same information and sets in in proper context. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Blueboy. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 10:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as per current discussion consensus. &dorno rocks. (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2010 (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.
- 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
West Midlands bus route 28
- West Midlands bus route 28 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable bus route.
The article says "Route 28 is one of the most notable bus routes, which National Express West Midlands operate in the West Midlands. As it is the only bus route which crosses Birmingham, however it dose not use the city centre" ... but that claim of being different from the other routes is not the same as a claim to notability.
There is no evidence that this route meets WP:GNG's test of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I already prodded this, as I don't believe it meets notability requirements. Aiken ♫ 22:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - After discussions last year at WT:UKBRQDRIVE this was one of the few West Midlands routed deemed to be notable enough to deserve an article. Other non notable routes were redirected at the time. Jeni (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeni, if this article is to be kept, we don't need assertions, we need evidence of how the route meets WP:GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on its own merits. All established bus routes are major features of the local geography, and if an article can be written, it should be; whether they are better merged is a question of style. The information is encyclopedic. . If people look at these articles and decide that they want to keep them, that makes a practical policy of exception to the GNG.There are other ways of showing notability, and it is in fact contrary to the current WP:N guideline to say the the GNG is the only way. Personally, I think trying to remove establish borderline articles is a very poor use of time here, when there are so many important things like unsourced BLPs to attend to. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Notability offers another way only where there are agreed separate guidelines.
- There is a very good practical reason for GNG: that it is an inevitable consequence of the core policy WP:V. Without it, an article can exist only as either original research or as repetition of primary source material.
- In the case of these articles, most of the material is simply unsourced, a situation which is all too common with topics which fail GNG. This article is a good example of that: it has no footnotes, and there is no indication of whether the content is from primary sources, or some unreliable source, or is just something made up. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Oops, missed this one. Essentially per BrownHairedGirl. GNG is an important guideline and shouldn't discarded lightly. It is important for good reason. Without significant coverage in reliable sources, it is usually impossible to have an encyclopaedic article about a subject that is properly verified. These bus route articles are a case in point: they are littered with original research and for all we know could be totally inaccurate. The reason they are littered with original research is because the reliable sources aren't there. For that reason, the original research is fatal and unsalvageable.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article fails to meet our general notability guideline. It does not assert notability and does note cite any third-party reliable sources that attest notability. MRSC (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as notability entirely uncertain and a lack of independent reliable sources significantly covering the subject. Orderinchaos 17:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable third party sources - name drops only. Karanacs (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep since information on the bus route is verifiable, and can be sourced. Dew Kane (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While I still support this being kept, even if the majority say delete, it should be merged to a parent article, and the edit history retained, so in the future, someone can dig up what is already written in an old version, and improve upon it. Dew Kane (talk) 04:30, 4 April 2010 (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.
- 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
London Buses route 372
- London Buses route 372 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another London bus route with no evidence of notability per WP:GNG.
The article's lead says that it "is notable for being one a limited number of services run by Transport for London to cross the Greater London boundary", but that's not evidence of notablity, it's a factoid which may be of passing interest to dedicated students of the topic.
Per WP:GNG, notability is established through substantial coverage in reliable sources, and there is no evidence of such coverage for this route. The factoid about boundary-crossing can be mentioned in the List of bus routes in London BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Only 3 buses every hour, and an unremarkable history. Aiken ♫ 21:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural keep for now, there is already ongoing discussion on this elsewhere, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#London bus route articles. These AfD's certianly don't help the process users are currently going through to determine which articles are notable and which aren't. Jeni (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural keep – since there is an on-going discussion elsewhere, please withdraw discussion to that location. The article can be renominated, if necessary, after the conclusion of the current discussion. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on its own merits. All established bus routes are major features of the local geography, and if an article can be written, it should be; whether they are better merged is a question of style. The information is encyclopedic. . Personally, I think trying to remove establish borderline articles is a very poor use of time here, when there are so many important things like unsourced BLPs to attend to. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Notability offers another way only where there are agreed separate guidelines.
- There is a very good practical reason for GNG: that it is an inevitable consequence of the core policy WP:V. Without it, an article can exist only as either original research or as repetition of primary source material.
- In the case of these articles, most of the material is simply unsourced, a situation which is all too common with topics which fail GNG. This article is a good example of that: it has no footnotes, and there is no indication of whether the content is from primary sources, or some unreliable source, or is just something made up. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Oops, missed this one. Essentially per BrownHairedGirl. GNG is an important guideline and shouldn't discarded lightly. It is important for good reason. Without significant coverage in reliable sources, it is usually impossible to have an encyclopaedic article about a subject that is properly verified. These bus route articles are a case in point: they are littered with original research and for all we know could be totally inaccurate. The reason they are littered with original research is because the reliable sources aren't there. For that reason, the original research is fatal and unsalvageable.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The new sources which I added show notability, although it's a pity the route history is only covered by londonbusroutes.net. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Disruptive deletion spree made without due diligence per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 74. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete or redirect. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources.--Crossmr (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all information contained in this article is verifiable. The majority of London bus routes are notable, and the system is notable. Dew Kane (talk) 04:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- strong keep very well referenced article. Okip 15:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I still support this being kept, even if the majority say delete, it should be merged to a parent article, and the edit history retained, so in the future, someone can dig up what is already written in an old version, and improve upon it. Dew Kane (talk) 04:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - various reliable london transport sources can source the article, and I can imagine some independent guide on transport describing the route. If I were in London I could probably find one in a newsagent or bookstore too. Hence there is all probability this is reliable. Does anyone really think there would be no local travel material mentioning this? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 6 April 2010 (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.
- 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 Speedy delete g3, pure vandalism, or g1, nonsense. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The face paradox
- The face paradox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Certainly something made up one day, and likely a hoax. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as an obvious hoax. The author is trying to be funny, but not succeeding as well as she probably thinks. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete G3 as a blatant hoax, which I've tagged it for. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Probably a hoax. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 23:41, 29 March 2010 (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.
- 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn nomination with no outstanding delete !votes. Tim Song (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
London Buses route 73
- London Buses route 73 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are adequate references to demonstrate that this bus route exists, and the information in the article is well-sourced in places (though with much unreferenced material), but there is no evidence that it meets the notability test of WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Some of the material in the article could be incorporated in an expanded List of bus routes in London, so a merger may be appropriate.
I initially PRODded this article, but the PROD was contested with a note in the edit summary that "this one is and can definatley be made notable. Infmaous for its Routemaster/bendy bus conversion". There was lots of coverage of the bendy buses, but I have yet to see any evidence that much of that coverage was focused on the routes. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I quite agree that most bus route articles are non-notable, but that "Infamous for its Routemaster/bendy bus conversion" was right on the mark in this case, even though the article at present isn't particularly good quality. The 73 bus runs through areas characterised by narrow twisting streets, but was chosen as the first major route to be added to the ill-fated bendy bus experiment. Transport for London was hauled in front of the Advertising Standards Agency (and lost) for misleading claims made in relation to this (see [2] for example); coverage specifically relating to the 73 bus route rather than the bus type in general. In addition, I'd argue that as the busiest bus route in London and the key bus route connecting North London to the centre and West End and thus the one that gets the most attention from TfL, it's a significant enough route to warrant separate treatment in its own right; as well as the aforementioned bendy buses, it was the first bus route fitted with GPS, the test route for automated announcements, the route used for population dip-sampling surveys… – iridescent 21:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination withdrawn. IMO, the refs provided by Iridescent meet comfortably meet WP:GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural keep for now, there is already ongoing discussion on this elsewhere. Jeni (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on its own merits. All established bus routes are major features of the local geography, and if an article can be written, it should be; whether they are better merged is a question of style. The information is encyclopedic. . If people look at these articles and decide that they want to keep them, that makes a practical policy of exception to the GNG.There are other ways of showing notability, and it is in fact contrary to the current WP:N guideline to say the the GNG is the only way. Personally, I think trying to remove establish borderline articles is a very poor use of time here, when there are so many important things like unsourced BLPs to attend to, DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Disruptive deletion spree made without due diligence per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 74. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AGF, please. I did indeed follow WP:BEFORE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:33, 30 March 2010 (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.
- 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. -- Cirt (talk) 11:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seagull's flying pattern
- Seagull's flying pattern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced stub article. Merge has been suggested, but everything in the article should be tagged as needing citations. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete At best, this would be mentioned in the gull/seagull page. Mandsford (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, pointless and unreferenced. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unencyclopedic. Shadowjams (talk) 07:38, 30 March 2010 (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.
- 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. -- Cirt (talk) 11:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chana Shapiro
- Chana Shapiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An unusual biography in which the subject's work and family histories are exhaustively referenced but without any notability asserted or present or reliable sources -- the long list of citations merely confirm the work and family details. The article's creator has removed a speedy tag a couple of times and added a (useless) semi-protection tag; I don't quite know how a new account can be so weirdly familiar with Wikipedia coding and so unfamiliar with its basic requirements, but I'd like the community to judge this article in a more permanent way than speedy deletion. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE as per the nom - no notability asserted or present. Codf1977 (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, just a marketing effort from a webpage developer. Citations are to websites she worked on, etc. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Advert/CV with no assertion of notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 02:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete - She's pretty darn cute. Do we have to delete her? Oh well... fails GNG and BIO. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete non-notable person; was previously nominated for speedy --mhking (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - High cuteness factor, low notability factor. If her Facebook page is anything to go by then this young lady is all about self promotion. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete She also appears to be a model - http://www.modelmayhem.com/1380005 (same age, same approximate address...). Not enough notability in either job, so far as I can see. Also known as Anna Shapiro and possible as Ann King http://www.ann-king.co.uk/ - looks to be the same one. (While I might agree with Burpelson AFB, I wouldn't dream of making such a comment....) Oh, by the way, http://www.ann-king.co.uk/contact has a whole line of Wikipedia categories linked at the bottom of the page. Probably irrelevant to this discussion. The page does confirm the address (32). Peridon (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2010 (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.
- 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 speedily deleted by User:Graeme Bartlett, "G3: Blatant hoax." Non-admin close for housekeeping — Glenfarclas (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weimering
- Weimering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Obvious hoax/vandalism. Speedy deletion tag was removed by another user (their sole contribution). Speedy delete. I42 (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, no clear obligation to observe speedy declines with no edit summaries done by obvious socks. Hairhorn (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, Obvious hoax, bs, nonsense, detritus. -Quartermaster (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy deleted I have deleted this one, hoaxlike. If someone knows how to close an AFD can they please do so? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2010 (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.
- 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 as per consensus and the absence of calls for deletion beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 00:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur Firstenberg
- Arthur Firstenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There don't appear to be adequate reliable, third-party sources to the level that we need for a biography of a living person. Some of the citations are to Firstenberg's own writings, and some are to local news reports, but there's nothing showing any evidence of real, long-term notability. *** Crotalus *** 18:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular T · C 18:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - news coverage is far wider than "local" - a Google News search for
Firstenberg & electromagnetic
turns up 22 articles, including in the LA Times, UPI, Yahoo News, ABC News, SF Chronicle, the Register (UK) and others, going back as far as Wired News in 2002. Whatever the merit of his beliefs, that is notability. --CliffC (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Keep. The article is well-sourced, and as CliffC points out, the subject is notable. Mitsube (talk) 04:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Original author, please help improve. Figure remains often cited and influential in internationally significant debate. Please help cross link. ∴ here…♠ 07:26, 30 March 2010 (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.
- 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. -- Cirt (talk) 11:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Energy Sword
- Energy Sword (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable element of a notable game (Halo). Additionally, it's largely comprised of original research and opinion. These concerns are of course secondary to the notability concern. If it can be demonstrated that there aren't other games with an "energy sword" I'd completely support a redirect to the Halo series article. But, again, notability is primary -- compare the coverage of this item to coverage of the clearly notable BFG9000 from Doom. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Perhaps could've been prodded like Overshields and Plasma Grenades. If either of those are contested, I believe they should be deleted as well. This is more suitable for: http://halo.wikia.com/. Jujutacular T · C 18:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I considered PROD'ing energy sword but the article isn't new like Overshields and Plasma Grenades (this one was started in 2006, although has basically sat untouched for the majority of its life), and my personal experience is that Halo's Energy Sword is a more remarkable weapon than the other two and, as such, might be a more controversial deletion. I didn't want to give the appearance of trying to sneak a PROD through the system, in other words :). But, yeah, those thoughts aside, I agree, and I thought about doing it. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As much as I love it, there's just not enough reliable, significant coverage of this weapon. That, along with the issues WP:OR and the WP:NFCC violations on the images is enough to "cut" this one. --Teancum (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Gamecruft. Get rid. Already well documented at Wikia Gaming. Marasmusine (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2010 (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.
- 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
London Buses route E8
- London Buses route E8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has two external links to primary sources which demonstrate that this bus route does indeed exist, though there are no footnotes.
However, there is no evidence that this bus route meets the notability test of WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Some of the material in the article could be incorporated in an expanded List of bus routes in London, so a merger may be appropriate. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep like most of the other London bus routes. Bus routes are a major feature of urban geography, and the history of them is an important part of the local history. Bus routes, unlike bus stops, are relatively stable. (IP removed) 19:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, all of the valuable local history in these articles appears to be unverified original research. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fortunately, London is sufficiently well documented that this can easily be corrected, preferably by people with access to local resources. (IP removed) 20:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete or merge. Bus routes ought to be held to the test of "significant coverage in reliable sources". Otherwise they cannot be the subject of reliable encyclopaedic articles. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural keep for now, there is already ongoing discussion on this elsewhere, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#London bus route articles. These AfD's certianly don't help the process users are currently going through to determine which articles are notable and which aren't. Jeni (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The assessments there seem pretty shoddy. For example, this comment praises London Buses route 187, but I see no evidence there of notability. Meanwhile, Jeni contested a series of PRODs for West Midlands bus routes for which there was no evidence of notability. If WikiProjects don't follow accepted standards of notability, then editors really do not have valid grounds for complaint that community-wide forums are used to remove non-notable material. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why are you choosing to ignore the discussion and mass AfD articles? You have noted in a comment somewhere that the discussion has been ongoing for a week, what you have failed to notice is that there is currently a couple of editors already going through each bus route article, assessing them for notability, adding references where needed and redirecting where notability isn't there. I see this as a pointy nomination more than anything. I'd have thought an admin would be setting an example and contributing to a discussion rather than these rash nominations. Jeni (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I only AFDed 6; I PRODded 13, which you disrupted by removing the PROD without offering any reason to keep the articles. If you persist in disrupting lightweight mechanisms for removing non-notable material, don't accuse anyone else of pointiness. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My reasons for removing the prods were very very clear, if you took the time to read the edit summaries (where it is generally accepted that reasons for PROD removal are located). Jeni (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your reasons for removing the West Midlands PRODs were that you asserted notability for those bus routes, even tho there was no evidence of notability and no claim of notability. Those reasons were indeed clear: clearly nonsense. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My reasons for removing the prods were very very clear, if you took the time to read the edit summaries (where it is generally accepted that reasons for PROD removal are located). Jeni (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I only AFDed 6; I PRODded 13, which you disrupted by removing the PROD without offering any reason to keep the articles. If you persist in disrupting lightweight mechanisms for removing non-notable material, don't accuse anyone else of pointiness. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's highly relevant. You object on procedural grounds to AFD, when you have repeatedly disrupted lightweight procedures for removing non-notable material. You can't have it both ways: if you contest PROds on bogus grounds, article will be taken to AFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are bringing up a completely different article which was objected to on different grounds. Tell me again how this is relevant? Jeni (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's relevant because it is evidence that all your procedural ruses are just a form of disruption, and that your actual purpose is trying to keep non-notable material. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are bringing up a completely different article which was objected to on different grounds. Tell me again how this is relevant? Jeni (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural keep – since there is an on-going discussion elsewhere, please withdraw discussion to that location. The article can be renominated, if necessary, after the conclusion of the current discussion. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on procedural keeps. These should be disregarded. Any editor is entitled to bring an AfD, regardless of whatever discussions are taking place within a Wikiproject. The community at large decides notability.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on its own merits. All established bus routes are major features of the local geography, and if an article can be written, it should be; whether they are better merged is a question of style. The information is encyclopedic. . If people look at these articles and decide that they want to keep them, that makes a practical policy of exception to the GNG.There are other ways of showing notability, and it is in fact contrary to the current WP:N guideline to say the the GNG is the only way. Personally, I think trying to remove establish borderline articles is a very poor use of time here, when there are so many important things like unsourced BLPs to attend to, DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Notability offers another way only where there are agreed separate guidelines.
- There is a very good practical reason for GNG: that without it, an article can exist only as either original research or as repetition of primary source material. In the case of many of these articles, most of the material is simply unsourced, a situation which is all too common with topics which fail GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Keep The claim to notability here is the hybrid vehicles, which received coverage in the source I just added. I've referenced the other information to londonbusroutes.co.uk for now to provide some form of verification, but I hope to find a more reliable offline source when I have the chance. The hybrids are enough to justify keeping the article anyway.See below Alzarian16 (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- You rightly note that article is not independent of the subject, but a further problem is that the press release linked to offers no significant coverage of this or any other bus route: it just lists the E8 as one of five routes to be the first to use hybrid buses. This sort of material (if it's in an independent source) may establish notability of the topic "hybrid buses in London", but not of the individual routes which get a name check in the article. (WP:GNG specifically says that "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention") --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right about the lack of significant coverage. I just felt it was worth improving the article to give it a fair hearing before it was deleted, as it's one of few nominated for deletion which I hadn't sourced before the nomination came up. Move to Delete or Redirect depending on result of discussions elsewhere about which is more appropriate. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You rightly note that article is not independent of the subject, but a further problem is that the press release linked to offers no significant coverage of this or any other bus route: it just lists the E8 as one of five routes to be the first to use hybrid buses. This sort of material (if it's in an independent source) may establish notability of the topic "hybrid buses in London", but not of the individual routes which get a name check in the article. (WP:GNG specifically says that "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention") --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Disruptive deletion spree made without due diligence per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 74. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AGF, please. I did indeed follow WP:BEFORE, and if you look above your comment you will see that even the editor who has worked on trying to improve many of these articles agrees that this one should be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete or redirect. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Yet another page full of assumptions of bad faith and disruptive comments. Procedural keep isn't valid because projects don't own articles. No sources, no article.--Crossmr (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect. These should be decided on their merits, and while some of the others nominated appear reasonable to me, this one clearly is not due to a lack of independent reliable sources discussing it. Orderinchaos 14:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable third party sources - name drops only. Karanacs (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all information contained in this article is verifiable. The majority of London bus routes are notable, and the system is notable. Dew Kane (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have added a couple more sources. Opinions above which presume lack of notability based upon the lack of sources are thus voided. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Both of those are trivial sources. There isn't remotely significant coverage provided by those. The first source is about the buses. It only mentions they'll run on the route. It doesn't really talk about the route at all. The second source is basically the same thing. Metroline will operate a further five on the E8 route between Ealing Broadway and Brentford. doesn't remotely approach significant coverage. You've been here long enough to know that.--Crossmr (talk) 01:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject of both those articles [3][4] is the deployment in London of hybrid buses, a topic which has received enough coverage across various sources to merit a standalone article. A few things stand out about those references:
- The WP:GNG test of "significant coverage" is explained as: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail. These articles do not directly address the route E8 in detail.
- The Hounslow Brentford Times article from Dec 2008 is about 25 hybrid buses to be deployed that month, of which five are on the E8 (the 25 were to be followed with another 18 in 2009, on unspecified routes). It namechecks the E8 in the first and last paras, but the article is about the hybrids, not the E8 route; the E8 is the local hook for a London story, also referenced toa primary source (the Dec 2008 Mayor's press release). The Mayor's press release confirms the 25 hybrids-with-18-to-follow
- The Engineer article from July 2009 namechecks the E8 once, in para 5, where it is the second of two routes mentioned
- The articles may differ from each other on significant points of fact. The Hounslow Brentford Times article from Dec 2008 says a fleet of 25 hybrids were to be deployed that month, with 5 on the E8. However, The Engineer article from July 2009 is about a trial of 10 buses of a specific type of hybrid, 5 of which go on the E8. However the way that these references have been used in the wikipedia articles conflates those two secondary sources with the mayor's press release, and is used to reference an assertion based in none of the refs: that "first of the hybrid buses appeared in the route in late March 2009" (a point which appears to have been added in a prev edit by Alzerian16)
- The WP:GNG test of "significant coverage" is explained as: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail. These articles do not directly address the route E8 in detail.
- The result of those two edits is a mess, with stories 7 months apart about difft numbers of buses conflated into one event and given a date of March 2009 which none of them supports. It's an excellent illustration of the risks of synthesising factoids from different sources which do not directly address the topic in detail, so I have removed all this hybrid material from the article and will add a note on the talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject of both those articles [3][4] is the deployment in London of hybrid buses, a topic which has received enough coverage across various sources to merit a standalone article. A few things stand out about those references:
- Comment - The nominator has now started to remove sourced content from this article,[5] presumably to bolster her viewpoint that it should be deleted. Jeni (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed I did remove the material, but not for the bad faith reasons which you suggest: my edit summary for the diff you posted is "remove synthesis of several sources which assert different points incompatible ways; more details to follow on talk page". See my explanation above, which I was just about to post when there was an edit conflict with your note; and see also Talk:London Buses route E8.
Please assume good faith and read edit the edit summary before making unfounded allegations of disruption. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed I did remove the material, but not for the bad faith reasons which you suggest: my edit summary for the diff you posted is "remove synthesis of several sources which assert different points incompatible ways; more details to follow on talk page". See my explanation above, which I was just about to post when there was an edit conflict with your note; and see also Talk:London Buses route E8.
- Other articles nominated:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 183
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 231
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 237
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 331
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 372
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 42
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 68
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 71
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 73
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 74
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 75
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 77
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route E8
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus route 28
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus route 33
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus route 7
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus routes 51, X51 and 951A
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capital City Green
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 68
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 77
- strong keep per above. Removal of referenced material by nominator, per Jeni, referenced article which meets notability guidelines. Okip 15:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you even read the article before writing that? I removed the referenced material for reasons explained above and at Talk:London Buses route E8, but even if you look at the version before I removed the inaccuracies, there is not a single reference to significant coverage in an independent reliable source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed - while some should definitely be kept, this one was in my opinion the weakest of the entire lot (alongside West Midlands 33) and should be the first to go. Orderinchaos 10:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you even read the article before writing that? I removed the referenced material for reasons explained above and at Talk:London Buses route E8, but even if you look at the version before I removed the inaccuracies, there is not a single reference to significant coverage in an independent reliable source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While I still support this being kept, even if the majority say delete, it should be merged to a parent article, and the edit history retained, so in the future, someone can dig up what is already written in an old version, and improve upon it. Dew Kane (talk) 04:31, 4 April 2010 (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.
- 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. without prejudice to a merge/redirect. There are 3 valid keep votes (I disregard proceedural keeps) and 1 redirect - there are 6 good delete votes (I disregard Stifle's - wikipedia isn't travel guide - but so what? I gave lest weight to John Naggle as "being a rehash" isn't in itself problematic unless we've got a copyvio). 60% for deletion isn't quite a consensus - particularly given one of the keeps is equally happy with a merge.) Scott Mac (Doc) 12:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
London Buses route 331
- London Buses route 331 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are some external links to primary sources which demonstrate that this bus route does indeed exist (though no footnotes), but there is no evidence that it meets the notability test of WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Some of the material in the article could be incorporated in an expanded List of bus routes in London, so a merger may be appropriate. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge. Bus routes ought to be held to the test of "significant coverage in reliable sources". Otherwise they cannot be the subject of reliable encyclopaedic articles. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural keep for now, there is already ongoing discussion on this elsewhere, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#London bus route articles. These AfD's certianly don't help the process users are currently going through to determine which articles are notable and which aren't. Jeni (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The assessments there seem pretty shoddy. For example, this comment praises London Buses route 187, but I see no evidence there of notability. Meanwhile, Jeni contested a series of PRODs for West Midlands bus routes for which there was no evidence of notability. If WikiProjects don't follow accepted standards of notability, then editors really do not have valid grounds for complaint that community-wide forums are used to remove non-notable material. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why are you choosing to ignore the discussion and mass AfD articles? You have noted in a comment somewhere that the discussion has been ongoing for a week, what you have failed to notice is that there is currently a couple of editors already going through each bus route article, assessing them for notability, adding references where needed and redirecting where notability isn't there. I see this as a pointy nomination more than anything. I'd have thought an admin would be setting an example and contributing to a discussion rather than these rash nominations. Jeni (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I only AFDed 6; I PRODded 13, which you disrupted by removing the PROD without offering any reason to keep the articles. If you persist in disrupting lightweight mechanisms for removing non-notable material, don't accuse anyone else of pointiness. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My reasons for removing the prods were very very clear, if you took the time to read the edit summaries (where it is generally accepted that reasons for PROD removal are located). Jeni (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your edit summaries offered no valid reason to keep the articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes they did, they stated that there is already an ongoing discussion on these articles. Jeni (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your reasons for removing the West Midlands PRODs were that you asserted notability for those bus routes, even tho there was no evidence of notability and no claim of notability. Those reasons were indeed clear: clearly nonsense. If you think that this is a notable bus route, it's little wonder that you don't want the wider community to scrutinise the notability of any such articles, and prefer to keep these things away from AFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes they did, they stated that there is already an ongoing discussion on these articles. Jeni (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your edit summaries offered no valid reason to keep the articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My reasons for removing the prods were very very clear, if you took the time to read the edit summaries (where it is generally accepted that reasons for PROD removal are located). Jeni (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I only AFDed 6; I PRODded 13, which you disrupted by removing the PROD without offering any reason to keep the articles. If you persist in disrupting lightweight mechanisms for removing non-notable material, don't accuse anyone else of pointiness. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's highly relevant. You object on procedural grounds to AFD, when you have repeatedly disrupted lightweight procedures for removing non-notable material. You can't have it both ways: if you contest PRODs on bogus grounds, article will be taken to AFD. All this flurry of procedural nonsense from you is simply part of along pattern of you trying to disrupt the removal of non-notable material which you want to keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are bringing up a completely different article which was objected to on different grounds. Tell me again how this is relevant? Jeni (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's relevant because it is evidence that all your procedural ruses are just a form of disruption, and that your actual purpose is trying to keep non-notable material. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are bringing up a completely different article which was objected to on different grounds. Tell me again how this is relevant? Jeni (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural keep – since there is an on-going discussion elsewhere, please withdraw discussion to that location. The article can be renominated, if necessary, after the conclusion of the current discussion. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on procedural keeps. These should be disregarded. Any editor is entitled to bring an AfD, regardless of whatever discussions are taking place within a Wikiproject. The community at large decides notability.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on its own merits. All established bus routes are major features of the local geography, and if an article can be written, it should be; whether they are better merged is a question of style. The information is encyclopedic. . If people look at these articles and decide that they want to keep them, that makes a practical policy of exception to the GNG.There are other ways of showing notability, and it is in fact contrary to the current WP:N guideline to say the the GNG is the only way. Personally, I think trying to remove establish borderline articles is a very poor use of time here, when there are so many important things like unsourced BLPs to attend to, DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Notability offers another way only where there are agreed separate guidelines.
- There is a very good practical reason for GNG: that it is an inevitable consequence of the core policy WP:V. Without it, an article can exist only as either original research or as repetition of primary source material.
- In the case of these articles, most of the material is simply unsourced, a situation which is all too common with topics which fail GNG. This article is a good example of that: it has no footnotes, and there is no indication of whether the content is from primary sources, or some unreliable source, or is just something made up. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of bus routes in London as non-notable. Very few sources showed up on Google, perhaps unsurprisingly as the route has a short, simple history. A redirect would be pereferable to deletion as this is a plausible search term which is already linked to by multiple articles. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect can be created after deletion, but redirecting without deletion leaves anyone free to simply revert the redirect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the worst argument for deletion I've ever heard in my life. Jeni (talk) 11:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As you should know if you had read the nomination, the substantive argument for deletion is clear, and founded in policy: that the article does not meet WP:GNG. Neither of you have offered any evidence to counter that.
- So why exactly do you object to deleting the article, and then creating a redirect? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the worst argument for deletion I've ever heard in my life. Jeni (talk) 11:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect can be created after deletion, but redirecting without deletion leaves anyone free to simply revert the redirect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - an insignificant history and lack of reliable sources indicate this should be deleted. Aiken ♫ 14:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Disruptive deletion spree made without due diligence per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 74. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AGF, please. I did indeed follow WP:BEFORE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete or redirect. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources.--Crossmr (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this, and related articles, are basically a rehash of info from a bus fan website at [6]. --John Nagle (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as insufficiently notable per the WP:GNG. There is no evidence this specific bus route has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by multiple, independent, reliable sources. As such, it is not possible to write an article which meets the non-negotiable requirements of WP:V and WP:NOR. — Satori Son 12:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia isn't a travel guide. Stifle (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable third party sources - name drops only. Karanacs (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all information contained in this article is verifiable. The majority of London bus routes are notable, and the system is notable. Dew Kane (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: While I still support this being kept, even if the majority say delete, it should be merged to a parent article, and the edit history retained, so in the future, someone can dig up what is already written in an old version, and improve upon it. Dew Kane (talk) 04:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a comparatively new route and so lacks the rich history of the lower-numbered London routes. But I have added a couple of sources to demonstrate that this route has been noticed too. No doubt, it will be covered by London bus scholars in their thorough documentation in due course and so the article should be retained for consistency with the other similar articles and as a foundation for further work. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This really is getting silly. The two sources you have added are: i) a tourist guide to Hillingdon which lists the bus as one way of getting to a few tourist venues. It's a real stretch to even include this stuff in the article, but as a claim to notabilty it's a non-starter. ii) a story about a bus driver killed at the bus garage, one of whose routes was the 331. Tragic accident, but the article name-checks the 331 just once; it too is not evidence of the notability of the route, and its inclusion in the article may breach WP:NOTMEMORIAL.
Even Col W does not actually claim that this route is notable, merely that he predicts it to become notable at some point in the future. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so predictions of notability are irrelevant; the argument to retain it "for consistency" ignores the fact that over a hundred articles on bus routes have already been redirect by the London Transport WikiProject: there is no consistent retention of these articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This really is getting silly. The two sources you have added are: i) a tourist guide to Hillingdon which lists the bus as one way of getting to a few tourist venues. It's a real stretch to even include this stuff in the article, but as a claim to notabilty it's a non-starter. ii) a story about a bus driver killed at the bus garage, one of whose routes was the 331. Tragic accident, but the article name-checks the 331 just once; it too is not evidence of the notability of the route, and its inclusion in the article may breach WP:NOTMEMORIAL.
- 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.
- 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
London Buses route 42
- London Buses route 42 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are some external links to primary sources which demonstrate that this bus route exists, but there is no evidence that it meets the notability test of WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Some of the material in the article could be incorporated in an expanded List of bus routes in London, so a merger may be appropriate. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge. Bus routes ought to be held to the test of "significant coverage in reliable sources". Otherwise they cannot be the subject of reliable encyclopaedic articles. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Don't you think that merging everything with List of bus routes in London might make the latter a tad long? Given there's hundreds of routes. Arriva436talk/contribs 19:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The list already exists. Given the concerns about its length, it's probably best just to delete the articles on non-notable routes rather than merge them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural keep for now, there is already ongoing discussion on this elsewhere, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#London bus route articles. These AfD's certianly don't help the process users are currently going through to determine which articles are notable and which aren't. Jeni (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The assessments there seem pretty shoddy. For example, this comment praises London Buses route 187, but I see no evidence there of notability. Meanwhile, Jeni contested a series of PRODs for West Midlands bus routes for which there was no evidence of notability. If WikiProjects don't follow accepted standards of notability, then editors really do not have valid grounds for complaint that community-wide forums are used to remove non-notable material. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why are you choosing to ignore the discussion and mass AfD articles? You have noted in a comment somewhere that the discussion has been ongoing for a week, what you have failed to notice is that there is currently a couple of editors already going through each bus route article, assessing them for notability, adding references where needed and redirecting where notability isn't there. I see this as a pointy nomination more than anything. I'd have thought an admin would be setting an example and contributing to a discussion rather than these rash nominations. Jeni (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I only AFDed 6; I PRODded 13, which you disrupted by removing the PROD without offering any reason to keep the articles. If you persist in disrupting lightweight mechanisms for removing non-notable material, don't accuse anyone else of pointiness. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My reasons for removing the prods were very very clear, if you took the time to read the edit summaries (where it is generally accepted that reasons for PROD removal are located). Jeni (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your reasons for removing the West Midlands PRODs were that you asserted notability for those bus routes, even tho there was no evidence of notability and no claim of notability. Those reasons were indeed clear: clearly nonsense. If you think that this is a notable bus route, it's little wonder that you don't want the wider community to scrutinise the notability of any such articles, and prefer to keep these things away from AFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My reasons for removing the prods were very very clear, if you took the time to read the edit summaries (where it is generally accepted that reasons for PROD removal are located). Jeni (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I only AFDed 6; I PRODded 13, which you disrupted by removing the PROD without offering any reason to keep the articles. If you persist in disrupting lightweight mechanisms for removing non-notable material, don't accuse anyone else of pointiness. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's relevant because it is evidence that all your procedural ruses are just a form of disruption, and that your actual purpose is trying to keep non-notable material. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) •
(contribs) 00:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The entire purpose of using PROD is to remove articles to whose removal nobody will object. If anyone objects for any reason at all , the deletion is not uncontroversial, and they can and should remove the prod. To object to their doing so is entirely besides the point--the point is that they do object, and that therefore whoever placed the prod cannot assume that their view is the consensus without a discussion. To remove it was the right and fair procedure--to object to it is being argumentative to no purpose, since the thing for the prodder to do, is argue the issue, and see if people will agree. To say that a contested matter is uncontestable is a self-contradiction, unless of course someone thinks when they are sure they are right, they are infallible. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course anyone can contest a PROD, and I would deplore any suggest of them being uncontestable; the point is that unless there is agreement, there should then be discussion at AFD. Unfortunately, in this case the editor who contested the PROD has also been opposing the existence of the AFD discussions which are supposed to allow consideration of the arguments, and has steadfastly refused to offer any reasons to keep the articles whose PRD she opposed.
- What's the point of having AFD and PROD as separate processes if an editor who contests a PROD don't offer any reasons to keep the article, and denounces the AFD? It's like a Congressman demanding that time be set aside for a debate on a topic and then refusing to speak on the substance and denouncing the existence of the debate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC) *Procedural keep – since there is an on-going discussion elsewhere, please withdraw discussion to that location. The article can be renominated, if necessary, after the conclusion of the current discussion. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The entire purpose of using PROD is to remove articles to whose removal nobody will object. If anyone objects for any reason at all , the deletion is not uncontroversial, and they can and should remove the prod. To object to their doing so is entirely besides the point--the point is that they do object, and that therefore whoever placed the prod cannot assume that their view is the consensus without a discussion. To remove it was the right and fair procedure--to object to it is being argumentative to no purpose, since the thing for the prodder to do, is argue the issue, and see if people will agree. To say that a contested matter is uncontestable is a self-contradiction, unless of course someone thinks when they are sure they are right, they are infallible. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on procedural keeps. These should be disregarded. Any editor is entitled to bring an AfD, regardless of whatever discussions are taking place within a Wikiproject. The community at large decides notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on its own merits. All established bus routes are major features of the local geography, and if an article can be written, it should be; whether they are better merged is a question of style. The information is encyclopedic. . If people look at these articles and decide that they want to keep them, that makes a practical policy of exception to the GNG.There are other ways of showing notability, and it is in fact contrary to the current WP:N guideline to say the the GNG is the only way. Personally, I think trying to remove establish borderline articles is a very poor use of time here, when there are so many important things like unsourced BLPs to attend to, DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Notability offers another way only where there are agreed separate guidelines.
- There is a very good practical reason for GNG: that it is an inevitable consequence of the core policy WP:V. Without it, an article can exist only as either original research or as repetition of primary source material.
- In the case of these articles, most of the material is simply unsourced, a situation which is all too common with topics which fail GNG. This article is a good example of that: it has no footnotes, and there is no indication of whether the content is from primary sources, or some unreliable source, or is just something made up. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
- Keep I hadn't got round to sourcing this one yet, but I've managed to find a lot of coverage to verify large parts of the article. Unsourced material is a major problem on these articles but we are working to improve them. Please give us time as most of the articles can be made acceptable. Alzarian16 (talk) 08:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Congrats on verifying some of the article, although it remains overwhelmingly unreferenced.
- The only independent coverage so far is the report Bus kills pedestrian on Walworth pavement. That's not really an article about the route as such, it's about an accident, and as such it's a similar situation to a WP:BLP1E issue: the general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person.
- If the man had been killed by Sean Citizen's Ford Escort, would we have an article on Sean Citizen's Ford Escort? I doubt it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's incorrect to say that the report is the only independent coverage, as the book source is as well. I agree that the report wouldn't be enough by itself, but together with the book and the hybrid coverage (although admittedly this isn't independent) I feel it adds up to enough to justify keeping. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, you are of course right that there is also a reference to the book McLachlan, Tom (1995). London Buses 1985-1995: Managing The Change, about which I find a webpage here and 1-para review at http://www.themodelbus.com/books/books_London_L.htm
- It's hard to tell without seeing the book, but both those links suggest that the broad scope of the book makes it is unlikely that any individual bus route will have received significant coverage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The coverage is basically two sentences on London Country South East's acquisition of the route in 1987. This may well not be enough to qualify as significant coverage, although it does support the text of the sentence I referenced to it. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well done verifying the fact, but I think that two sentences in a book is quite a long way short of significant coverage. "Brief mention" might be a better way of describing it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The coverage is basically two sentences on London Country South East's acquisition of the route in 1987. This may well not be enough to qualify as significant coverage, although it does support the text of the sentence I referenced to it. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's incorrect to say that the report is the only independent coverage, as the book source is as well. I agree that the report wouldn't be enough by itself, but together with the book and the hybrid coverage (although admittedly this isn't independent) I feel it adds up to enough to justify keeping. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Disruptive deletion spree made without due diligence per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 74. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AGF, please. I did indeed follow WP:BEFORE, and if you look above your comment you will see that even the editor who has worked on trying to improve many of these articles (and is most familiar with the sources) can find no evidence of notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't given up just yet: per a comment I made here which was initially rejected as not worth the effort, I intend to look through old issues of Buses Magazine to find the significant coverage this article needs. I do however agree that your nominations weren't disruptive. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AGF, please. I did indeed follow WP:BEFORE, and if you look above your comment you will see that even the editor who has worked on trying to improve many of these articles (and is most familiar with the sources) can find no evidence of notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete or redirect. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Sources that have been found still do not constitute significant coverage--Crossmr (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable third party sources - name drops only. Karanacs (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all information contained in this article is verifiable. The majority of London bus routes are notable, and the system is notable. Dew Kane (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- note to closing administrator this article has gone through significant improvements since it was nominated for deletion.[7]
- keep; well sourced article, meets all notability guidelines. Okip 15:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I still support this being kept, even if the majority say delete, it should be merged to a parent article, and the edit history retained, so in the future, someone can dig up what is already written in an old version, and improve upon it. Dew Kane (talk) 04:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep; sorry it has taken me so long to reply.. I'm in the process of moving home..all of the article can be referenced in the Omnibus Societies' publications 'London Bus Routes and allocations from 1899 /1908 until 1925' published at various dates over the last ten years, as well as LOTS London Omnibus Traction Society publications.. My books are packed away at the moment so I'm not able to give ISBN numbers right now, but would be wiling to supply them asap. The 42 is an example of a London Bus Route which has, over the years, moved it's area of operation, whilst retaining the same route number. See also London Buses route 93 of which I'm also the author.--IsarSteve (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Have you noticed dozens of other London bus routes are up for deletion? Do these books that you are mentioning help reference all of those too? If so, this could help save all those articles as well. Dew Kane (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually hadn't noticed. Of course they do, they are the standard works on London Bus Routes and allocations: I'm not sure why you think I would want to make up all this stuff..and the deletion has IMO more to do with internal WIKI insecurity and wanting to save space than this notion that the articles are not 'notable'.--IsarSteve (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Have you noticed dozens of other London bus routes are up for deletion? Do these books that you are mentioning help reference all of those too? If so, this could help save all those articles as well. Dew Kane (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2010 (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.
- 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
London Buses route 237
- London Buses route 237 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are some external links to demonstrate that this bus route exists, (though with no footnotes), but there is no evidence that it meets the notability test of WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Some of the material in the article could be incorporated in an expanded List of bus routes in London, so a merger may be appropriate. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular T · C 18:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular T · C 18:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge. Bus routes ought to be held to the test of "significant coverage in reliable sources". Otherwise they cannot be the subject of reliable encyclopaedic articles. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural keep for now, there is already ongoing discussion on this elsewhere, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#London bus route articles. These AfD's certianly don't help the process users are currently going through to determine which articles are notable and which aren't. Jeni (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The assessments there seem pretty shoddy. For example, this comment praises London Buses route 187, but I see no evidence there of notability. Meanwhile, Jeni contested a series of PRODs for West Midlands bus routes for which there was no evidence of notability. If WikiProjects don't follow accepted standards of notability, then editors really do not have valid grounds for complaint that community-wide forums are used to remove non-notable material. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why are you choosing to ignore the discussion and mass AfD articles? You have noted in a comment somewhere that the discussion has been ongoing for a week, what you have failed to notice is that there is currently a couple of editors already going through each bus route article, assessing them for notability, adding references where needed and redirecting where notability isn't there. I see this as a pointy nomination more than anything. Jeni (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I only AFDed 6; I PRODded 13, which you disrupted by removing the PROD without offering any reason to keep the articles. If you persist in disrupting lightweight mechanisms for removing non-notable material, don't accuse anyone else of pointiness when the articles then get taken to AFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My reasons for removing the prods were very very clear, if you took the time to read the edit summaries (where it is generally accepted that reasons for PROD removal are located). Jeni (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly did read the edit summaries.
- Your reasons for removing the West Midlands PRODs were that you asserted notability for those bus routes, even tho there was no evidence of notability and no claim of notability. Those reasons were indeed clear: clearly nonsense. If you think that this is a notable bus route, it's little wonder that you don't want the wider community to scrutinise the notability of any such articles, and prefer to keep these things away from AFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My reasons for removing the prods were very very clear, if you took the time to read the edit summaries (where it is generally accepted that reasons for PROD removal are located). Jeni (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I only AFDed 6; I PRODded 13, which you disrupted by removing the PROD without offering any reason to keep the articles. If you persist in disrupting lightweight mechanisms for removing non-notable material, don't accuse anyone else of pointiness when the articles then get taken to AFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why are you choosing to ignore the discussion and mass AfD articles? You have noted in a comment somewhere that the discussion has been ongoing for a week, what you have failed to notice is that there is currently a couple of editors already going through each bus route article, assessing them for notability, adding references where needed and redirecting where notability isn't there. I see this as a pointy nomination more than anything. Jeni (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The assessments there seem pretty shoddy. For example, this comment praises London Buses route 187, but I see no evidence there of notability. Meanwhile, Jeni contested a series of PRODs for West Midlands bus routes for which there was no evidence of notability. If WikiProjects don't follow accepted standards of notability, then editors really do not have valid grounds for complaint that community-wide forums are used to remove non-notable material. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's highly relevant. You object on procedural grounds to AFD, when you have repeatedly disrupted lightweight procedures for removing non-notable material. You can't have it both ways: if you contest PROds on bogus grounds, article will be taken to AFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are bringing up a completely different article which was objected to on different grounds. Tell me again how this is relevant? Jeni (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's relevant because it is evidence that all your procedural ruses are just a form of disruption, and that your actual purpose is trying to keep non-notable material. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are bringing up a completely different article which was objected to on different grounds. Tell me again how this is relevant? Jeni (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural keep – since there is an on-going discussion elsewhere, please withdraw discussion to that location. The article can be renominated, if necessary, after the conclusion of the current discussion. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on procedural keeps. These should be disregarded. Any editor is entitled to bring an AfD, regardless of whatever discussions are taking place within a Wikiproject. The community at large decides notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of bus routes in London. Much as I would like to keep this, it really isn't notable enough. A redirect would be prefereable to deletion as it is undoubtedly a plausible search term which is already linked to from multiple pages. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect can be created after deletion, but redirecting without deletion leaves anyone free to simply revert the redirect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the worst argument for deletion I have ever heard in my life! Jeni (talk) 11:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a bit harsh, but I agree that it isn't very convincing. Jeni redirected around 100 articles a year ago and only seven were restores - two were later re-redirected, and one is at an AfD. The other 4 actually show a form notability so were correctly restored. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As you should both know if you had read the nomination, the substantive argument for deletion is clear, and founded in policy: that the article does not meet WP:GNG. Neither of you have offered any evidence to counter that.
- So why exactly do you object to deleting the article, and then creating a redirect? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it would mean that we'd have to extend it to all other articles where this applies, including the previous 100 redirected articles, and a number of others not connected to this topic such as Unsigned Integers, CONCEPTiCONS, How I Conquered Your Planet and several thousand others. It wouldn't be worth the effort, so why should we apply it here? Alzarian16 (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it wouldn't. We could decide to do that with other redirected titles, but we don't have to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So why do it here if not anywhere else? The "preventing restoration" argument doesn't sound all that convincing - if it were correct we would have to do it everywhere. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is done in other cases when material is merged, in order to preserve the edit history for attribution purposes. However, in this case there is nothing to merge, so there is no need to retain that edit history. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Take a look at WP:Articles for deletion/How I Conquered Your Planet. This was an AfD of an unsourced article which was closed following consesnsus that the article was not notable, but where the closing admin chose to redirect rather than delete. There was no content merged in this case, so how is it any different to this one? Alzarian16 (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is done in other cases when material is merged, in order to preserve the edit history for attribution purposes. However, in this case there is nothing to merge, so there is no need to retain that edit history. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So why do it here if not anywhere else? The "preventing restoration" argument doesn't sound all that convincing - if it were correct we would have to do it everywhere. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it wouldn't. We could decide to do that with other redirected titles, but we don't have to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it would mean that we'd have to extend it to all other articles where this applies, including the previous 100 redirected articles, and a number of others not connected to this topic such as Unsigned Integers, CONCEPTiCONS, How I Conquered Your Planet and several thousand others. It wouldn't be worth the effort, so why should we apply it here? Alzarian16 (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a bit harsh, but I agree that it isn't very convincing. Jeni redirected around 100 articles a year ago and only seven were restores - two were later re-redirected, and one is at an AfD. The other 4 actually show a form notability so were correctly restored. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirection is preferable to deletion in such cases because
- That is the worst argument for deletion I have ever heard in my life! Jeni (talk) 11:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect can be created after deletion, but redirecting without deletion leaves anyone free to simply revert the redirect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It maintains existing wikilinks
- It assists reader navigation
- It maintains the edit history and attribution
- It is our editing policy
- Colonel Warden (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true. It is not wikiedia policy to retain vast chunks of unreferenced material on non-notable topics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Disruptive deletion spree made without due diligence per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 74. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AGF, please. I did indeed follow WP:BEFORE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete or redirect. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources. "procedural keep" arguments are non-starters by people who want to ignore the issue. The lack of AGF around here is rather disgusting.--Crossmr (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable third party sources - name drops only. Karanacs (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all information contained in this article is verifiable. The majority of London bus routes are notable, and the system is notable. Dew Kane (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: While I still support this being kept, even if the majority say delete, it should be merged to a parent article, and the edit history retained, so in the future, someone can dig up what is already written in an old version, and improve upon it. Dew Kane (talk) 04:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have sourced this article and so the comments based upon the lack of sources above are obsolete. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a total of 2 sources, with huge areas of text unsourced. They are not obsolete until the entire thing is sourced. Aiken ♫ 00:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this is not a GA review and so we are not trying to clean up the article to a high standard. All that is required is to satisfy ourselves that the topic has sufficient notability and promise so that it should be preserved in accordance with our editing policy for further work. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Col W, your statement that "I have sourced this article" is nonsense. Either you simply you haven't looked at the result of your edits, or you telling untruths in the hope of persuading driveby !voters to back you ... but I really cannot see any way in which a competent editor who had looked at the article could in good faith that it is sourced. I had hoped that the lack of sources would be self-evident, but since it apparently isn't, have just added {{fact}} tags to all the unreferenced assertions: see the result here, an almighty forest of [citation needed].
- The two references you have added are to the 1952 Greater London Bus Map, and the Routemaster Omnibus, neither of which gives significant coverage of thus route. There is therefore no evidence of notability per WP:GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The route has a complex history. The Routemaster Omnibus source has much to say about the route and I have not yet fully digested this. But, on my first pass, I found that the details in the article stood up and so I added supporting citations where there was a clear correspondence. I have no doubt that other sources which I have seen but not yet purchased would enable us to confirm the other details. As it appears that you have no direct knowledge of these sources yourself, your criticisms lack credibility. Please see WP:HONEST and also WP:TAGBOMB. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Col W, you said "I have sourced this article", but after your edits the article remains overwhelmingly unsourced. I had assumed that no competent and honest editor would question the lack of sourcing in the article, but in the face of your false claim to have "sourced the article", the tags are necessary to illustrate just how much of it remains unsourced.
No, I have not seen the Routemaster Omnibus book; I took on good faith your statement that the book includes only one page on another route, and since the Amazaon listing notes that contains only 288 pages in total, it is highky iunlikelt that one-route-per-age could even be the average coverage. As to the route map, I have seen the lo-res version of that, and if the few little symbols on that map establish the notability of any individual route, then we are both the world's first banana fritters to edit wikiedia.
The rest of what you say is pure crystal-ball gazing: you believe that some sources you have not yet checked will confirm unsourced details. So you have no evidence of notability, and no sources for most of the article; but you want to keep all this unreferenced stuff, contrary to WP:V, because of your belief that sources exist. Neither WP:V and WP:GNG rely on an editor's assertion of religious faith in the existence of as yet-unchecked sources, they rely on evidence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Col W, you said "I have sourced this article", but after your edits the article remains overwhelmingly unsourced. I had assumed that no competent and honest editor would question the lack of sourcing in the article, but in the face of your false claim to have "sourced the article", the tags are necessary to illustrate just how much of it remains unsourced.
- The route has a complex history. The Routemaster Omnibus source has much to say about the route and I have not yet fully digested this. But, on my first pass, I found that the details in the article stood up and so I added supporting citations where there was a clear correspondence. I have no doubt that other sources which I have seen but not yet purchased would enable us to confirm the other details. As it appears that you have no direct knowledge of these sources yourself, your criticisms lack credibility. Please see WP:HONEST and also WP:TAGBOMB. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this is not a GA review and so we are not trying to clean up the article to a high standard. All that is required is to satisfy ourselves that the topic has sufficient notability and promise so that it should be preserved in accordance with our editing policy for further work. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep It has a very minor claim to notability, apparently being a rare case of switching back to a two-person operation. However, it lacks sources for the majority of the article. Aiken ♫ 00:28, 5 April 2010 (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.
- 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, and thus] kept There's not quite a consensus to keep - but clearly none to delete. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rationale - the article is verifiable and capable of neutral presentation, therefore there are no overriding policy reasons to delete. The nomination therefore requires a consensus in support. The GNG are guidelines, and whilst they may influence and guide those participating, they don't mandate deletion, absent such a consensus, even if the article were thought to fail them.
- Looking at the votes. There are 6 valid delete votes. (I'm disregarding that of Radman as "we don't need this" isn't a reason to delete it.) There are 5 solid keep votes (DGG Alzarian, DewKane, Dreamfocus, and Editor). That alone would give no consensus. There are additionally three more dubious keep votes, arguing for keep on grounds of procedure or lack of nominator's diligence, I attach less weight to these because they don't address the article's merits at all - but they tip things towards keeping at this time. Added together we've clearly got nothing like a consensus to delete - so the article is kept.
London Buses route 183
- London Buses route 183 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are adequate references to demonstrate that this bus route exists, and the information in the article is well-sourced in places (though with much unreferenced material), but there is no evidence that it meets the notability test of WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Some of the material in the article could be incorporated in an expanded List of bus routes in London, so a merger may be appropriate. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge. Bus routes ought to be held to the test of "significant coverage in reliable sources". Otherwise they cannot be the subject of reliable encyclopaedic articles. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural keep for now, there is already ongoing discussion on this elsewhere, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#London bus route articles. These AfD's certianly don't help the process users are currently going through to determine which articles are notable and which aren't. Jeni (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The assessments there seem pretty shoddy. For example, this comment praises London Buses route 187, but I see no evidence there of notability. Meanwhile, Jeni contested a series of PRODs for West Midlands bus routes for which there was no evidence of notability. If WikiProjects don't follow accepted standards of notability, then editors really do not have valid grounds for complaint that community-wide forums are used to remove non-notable material. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why are you choosing to ignore the discussion and mass AfD articles? You have noted in a comment somewhere that the discussion has been ongoing for a week, what you have failed to notice is that there is currently a couple of editors already going through each bus route article, assessing them for notability, adding references where needed and redirecting where notability isn't there. I see this as a pointy nomination more than anything. Jeni (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I only AFDed 6; I PRODded 13, which you disrupted by removing the PROD without offering any reason to keep the articles. If you persist in disrupting lightweight mechanisms for removing non-notable material, don't accuse anyone else of pointiness when the articles then get taken to AFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My reasons for removing the prods were very very clear, if you took the time to read the edit summaries (where it is generally accepted that reasons for PROD removal are located). Jeni (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your reasons for removing the West Midlands PRODs were that you asserted notability for those bus routes, even tho there was no evidence of notability and no claim of notability. Those reasons were indeed clear: clearly nonsense. If you think that this is a notable bus route, it's little wonder that you don't want the wider community to scrutinise the notability of any such articles, and prefer to keep these things away from AFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My reasons for removing the prods were very very clear, if you took the time to read the edit summaries (where it is generally accepted that reasons for PROD removal are located). Jeni (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I only AFDed 6; I PRODded 13, which you disrupted by removing the PROD without offering any reason to keep the articles. If you persist in disrupting lightweight mechanisms for removing non-notable material, don't accuse anyone else of pointiness when the articles then get taken to AFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why are you choosing to ignore the discussion and mass AfD articles? You have noted in a comment somewhere that the discussion has been ongoing for a week, what you have failed to notice is that there is currently a couple of editors already going through each bus route article, assessing them for notability, adding references where needed and redirecting where notability isn't there. I see this as a pointy nomination more than anything. Jeni (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The assessments there seem pretty shoddy. For example, this comment praises London Buses route 187, but I see no evidence there of notability. Meanwhile, Jeni contested a series of PRODs for West Midlands bus routes for which there was no evidence of notability. If WikiProjects don't follow accepted standards of notability, then editors really do not have valid grounds for complaint that community-wide forums are used to remove non-notable material. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's highly relevant. You object on procedural grounds to AFD, when you have repeatedly disrupted lightweight procedures for removing non-notable material. You can't have it both ways: if you contest PROds on bogus grounds, article will be taken to AFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are bringing up a completely different article which was objected to on different grounds. Tell me again how this is relevant? Jeni (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's relevant because it is evidence that all your procedural ruses are just a form of disruption, and that your actual purpose is trying to keep non-notable material. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are bringing up a completely different article which was objected to on different grounds. Tell me again how this is relevant? Jeni (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural keep – since there is an on-going discussion elsewhere, please withdraw discussion to that location. The article can be renominated, if necessary, after the conclusion of the current discussion. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The entire purpose of using PROD is to remove articles to whose removal nobody will object. If anyone objects for any reason at all , the deletion is not uncontroversial, and they can and should remove the prod. To object to their doing so is entirely besides the point--the point is that they do object, and that therefore whoever placed the prod cannot assume that their view is the consensus without a discussion. To remove it was the right and fair procedure--to object to it is being argumentative to no purpose, since the thing for the prodder to do, is argue the issue, and see if people will agree. To say that a contested matter is uncontestable is a self-contradiction, unless of course someone thinks when they are sure they are right, they are infallible. DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course anyone can contest a PROD, and I would deplore any suggest of them being uncontestable; the point is that unless there is agreement, there should then be discussion at AFD. Unfortunately, in this case the editor who contested the PROD has also been opposing the existence of the AFD discussions which are supposed to allow consideration of the arguments, and has steadfastly refused to offer any reasons to keep the articles whose PRD she opposed.
- What's the point of having AFD and PROD as separate processes if an editor who contests a PROD don't offer any reasons to keep the article, and denounces the AFD? It's like a Congressman demanding that time be set aside for a debate on a topic and then refusing to speak on the substance and denouncing the existence of the debate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The entire purpose of using PROD is to remove articles to whose removal nobody will object. If anyone objects for any reason at all , the deletion is not uncontroversial, and they can and should remove the prod. To object to their doing so is entirely besides the point--the point is that they do object, and that therefore whoever placed the prod cannot assume that their view is the consensus without a discussion. To remove it was the right and fair procedure--to object to it is being argumentative to no purpose, since the thing for the prodder to do, is argue the issue, and see if people will agree. To say that a contested matter is uncontestable is a self-contradiction, unless of course someone thinks when they are sure they are right, they are infallible. DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on procedural keeps. These should be disregarded. Any editor is entitled to bring an AfD, regardless of whatever discussions are taking place within a Wikiproject. The community at large decides notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on its own merits. All established bus routes are major features of the local geography, and if an article can be written, it should be; whether they are better merged is a question of style. The information is encyclopedic. . If people look at these articles and decide that they want to keep them, that makes a practical policy of exception to the GNG.There are other ways of showing notability, and it is in fact contrary to the current WP:N guideline to say the the GNG is the only way. Personally, I think trying to remove establish borderline articles is a very poor use of time here, when there are so many important things like unsourced BLPs to attend to, DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Notability offers another way only where there are agreed separate guidelines.
- There is a very good practical reason for GNG: that it is an inevitable consequence of the core policy WP:V. Without it, an article can exist only as either original research or as repetition of primary source material.
- In the case of these articles, most of the material is simply unsourced, a situation which is all too common with topics which fail GNG. This article is a good example of that: it has no footnotes, and there is no indication of whether the content is from primary sources, or some unreliable source, or is just something made up. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is now sourced, although not always to reliable sources. But it did receive coverage in the BBC News, which is reliable, so can probably justify retention per WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I don't think that's right. The BBC News report 'Worst bus route' named and shamed gives significant coverage to route 322 (which ironically does not have an article), but route 183 is not even mentioned in the body of the article, just listed in a cut-out box. A one-line mention is not significant coverage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Disruptive deletion spree made without due diligence per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 74. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AGF, please. I did indeed follow WP:BEFORE, and if you look above your comment you will see that even the editor who has worked on trying to improve many of these articles can find nothing which meets WP:GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Projects don't own articles. No user is required to avoid nominating an article or working on it because projects are talking about it.--Crossmr (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete sources do not seem to give significant coverage from reliable third party sources. Name drops and trivial mentions are not significant.--Crossmr (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:MILL. We don't need articles on every bus route in existence. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 17:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MILL is an essay with no standing. We are not discussing every bus route in the world, just this one.
- Delete. Article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable third party sources - name drops only. Karanacs (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect rather than delete no real opinion if we should have the article as stand alone or not, but we shouldn't delete given a list article exists. Hobit (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all information contained in this article is verifiable. The majority of London bus routes are notable, and the system is notable. Dew Kane (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Some believe all bus routes are notable, some believe none of them are. I believe this one clearly is, there a lot to write about it. We really need to have a clear guideline made on fair standards to determine which routes are notable and which are not. Dream Focus 19:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dream Focus, everyone can believe whatever they want, but if we just stated our beliefs we'd never reach consensus on anything. This is supposed to be a reasoned discussion, in which editors offer reasons why they take a particular view. So what are the reasons for your assertion that this one is notable?
- BTW, if someone wants to propose a new guideline and try to gain consensus support for it, then go head. But in the meantime we already have a long-standing and stable guideline: WP:GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The BBC listed it as one of the five worse bus routes in an article called Worst bus route' named and shamed. This is linked to in the article. That counts towards it notability. Dream Focus 10:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What we've got is "3rd word bus in London in summer 2002, though even then there's no evidence that anybody wrote anything about the route". Fine to mention this sort of thing in an article, but previous editors of the article have been right not to give it undue prominence, and leave it buried in the history section.
- 183 in the list, but it is not mentioned in the text of the article, so WP:GNG is not satisfied (no significant coverage). An assertion of notability often points towards the existence of more coverage of that aspect of a topic, but I can't find any, and after a little burrowing I can see why. That list is not of all-time-ever worst buses, or anything like that; it's a report of 3 months worth of statistics. So the 183 was the 3rd worst London bus route in the summer of 2002. Last month's story is that the latest list of worst buses seems to be clustered in Brent, according to a Lib Dem councillor. A lone name-check like that does not establish notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The BBC listed it as one of the five worse bus routes in an article called Worst bus route' named and shamed. This is linked to in the article. That counts towards it notability. Dream Focus 10:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Redirect Appears to contain solely trivia and is largely unreferenced; no evidence of notability. Orderinchaos 10:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have added some more sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The latest of which is a link to map-selling site's sale of reprints of the old bus maps. The link which Col W has used doesn't even verify the assertion which it is used to reference, viz. that "this route was still much the same in 1952". I'll assume in good faith that Col W actually has a copy of the map and just posted an un-needed commercial link, but the existence of a bus map is a primary source which does not in any way denote notability.
- There is more initial promise in his other ref, a local newspaper story about bus thieves on the route. But like many local newspaper stories, the substance is less dramatic than the headline: one man reports his mum's bag being slashed, and some of her friends being robbed, and alleges that crime is rife on the route. That's all: the police only confirm the one incident, and the story doesn't even support its own lead claim that "Vulnerable pensioners are being preyed upon by gangs of thieves on the 183 bus which travels through Harrow and Pinner". Reliable source? No. ... and a quick google search confirms my personal experience that crime on buses has at times been a big problem across many routes in London: "bus crime" london -wikipedia returns 4,750 hits including a BBC report showing 30,000 to 40,000 crimes a year on London buses in that period. So there I have a big undue weight concern about even mentioning the incidents on the 183 out of context, particularly since a search for bus thieves london now returns the 183 as the top result.
- So, analysing the local newspaper story, we have evidence that one bus crime out of about 35,000 that year happened on the route 183, and an unconfirmed 3rd-hand report from the (man's mum's friends) of two others. Col W didn't claim that this establishes notability, which is just as well because that's an abysmal claim to notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The bus map document is not a primary source. The information it contains has been reformatted and reprinted in a modern style and is sold as a historical reference as it is obviously little practical use for routes of 58 years ago. As this and other similar historical references are still in print and being actively promoted and sold, this is clear evidence that this information is notable rather than mundane ephemera. As we are constantly told, Wikipedia prefers a historical perspective in its articles and such sources are therefore excellent for our purpose. Editors who doubt the accuracy of the citations may purchase their own copies - we have no requirement to provide access to online copies of such work as this would be a breach of commercial copyright. The link is provided to facilitate this and to forestall the complaints of any Doubting Thomas who might otherwise allege that we had invented the source. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I hadn't noticed the reformatting, so thanks for the correction. But is a revision of an old map a primary source? Interesting question, and I'm not sure there's an quick answer.
- However, even if we assume that it is a secondary source, it's still a map of all the bus and trolleybus routes in London, not just the 183. The fact that there is a market for these historical maps demonstrates once again the notability of the London Bus system as a whole ... but that's not at issue. It would be quite a stretch to suggest that inclusion in a map of ~200 routes amounts to "significant coverage", and I note that Col W is wisely not claiming that. So we still have no evidence of notability per WP:GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I most definitely claim that it is significant. The document is, of course a compendium, showing all the routes severally and together, both in text and visually. As it mainly contains routing information, it is obviously this information that its editors, purchasers and readers find significant. It is not our job to second-guess and sneer at their judgement. If there are readers for such stuff then we have our work cut out for us in summarising this material and presenting it in a convenient and accessible fashion. Bus route numbers are the obvious index to use for this purpose and so form the natural basis of our presentation. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, this is simply making a mockery of common sense. First you insist that a reformatted primary source is not a primary source; and now you insist that being one of several hundred routes marked on a map is "significant". If that's how "significant" is to be defined for notability purposes, then have abandoned the notability guidelines and are just keeping any article on a topic that gets a brief mention anywhere. If that's what you want, then propose the deletion of WP:N ... but in the meantime, WP:N stands. You started off with a gratuitous assumption of bad faith, and now you want to rewrite the English dictionary for the purposes of this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The OED provides 11 different definitions for the word significant. We need not dwell on this though because the guideline WP:N conveniently provides its own definition for our purposes, "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content". Addressing the topic directly and in detail is what we have in the sources provided and so that's that. It seems to be yourself that is reinterpreting this guideline in a novel way - demanding word counts and other ad hoc concepts which the guideline does not require. Commonsense indicates that sources which specifically address the topic of this and other bus routes are appropriate for our purpose. The existence of numerous sources of this kind is significant in every relevant way. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The bus map document is not a primary source. The information it contains has been reformatted and reprinted in a modern style and is sold as a historical reference as it is obviously little practical use for routes of 58 years ago. As this and other similar historical references are still in print and being actively promoted and sold, this is clear evidence that this information is notable rather than mundane ephemera. As we are constantly told, Wikipedia prefers a historical perspective in its articles and such sources are therefore excellent for our purpose. Editors who doubt the accuracy of the citations may purchase their own copies - we have no requirement to provide access to online copies of such work as this would be a breach of commercial copyright. The link is provided to facilitate this and to forestall the complaints of any Doubting Thomas who might otherwise allege that we had invented the source. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep More sources appear to have been added from when I first took a look through. Content in the article is verifiable and the number of reliable references proves notability. Editor5807speak 00:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nom has it exactly right and nothing has been done (the "sources" adduced notwithstanding) to redress the basic concerns: WP:RS and WP:GNG. This is better of as a list. Eusebeus (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2010 (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.
- 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. Tone 15:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pontnewynydd Primary School
- Pontnewynydd Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
My attempt to redirect this to the article on the community where the school is located (to which I added a mention of the school), per the usual practice for nonnotable elementary schools, was reverted by an editor who apparently doesn't accept the WP notability guidelines, so I guess I have to bring it here. Insufficient substantive treatment in reliable secondary sources to support a stand-alone article. Deor (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. —Deor (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Deor (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per nom, though AfD is for debating deletion of an article, not for contesting reversion of a redirect. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close(See Below) Since no one wants to delete this discussion should continue elsewhere. AFD is not a substitute for dispute resolution.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (And by dispute resolution I include any attempt to discuss this. The talk page is redlinked, and there's no discussion on the talkpage of the editor who reverted).--Cube lurker (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say that I didn't "want to delete". Indeed, in the second sentence of my nomination I gave reasons why the article does not satisfy the general notability guideline and is therefore worthy of deletion. Considering Colonel Warden's comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodside Primary School, Grays, one might reasonably conclude that any attempt to discuss the matter with him would be futile. Deor (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You said standard practice was to redirect. I agree. Someone reverted you. I tend to agree redirect is the way to go. But did you ask why the other user disagreed with the redirect? That's the next step. No need to bring it here when the redirect can be handled through normal consensus.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I already knew why he disagreed with the redirect—to wit, because he disagrees with the "standard practice" and with the notability guidelines in general. Deor (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then if this is part of some larger dispute between you two, there's dispute resolution.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not aware of any larger dispute. Look, I happened on this article because of its inclusion in Category:United Kingdom articles missing geocoordinate data, and I tried to be nice and act in accordance with established procedure by adding a sentence about the school to Pontnewynydd and redirecting the article there; but a user who has participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodside Primary School, Grays—which I nominated for a similar reason—has apparently decided to follow my contributions and revert any such actions on my part. What sort of dispute resolution would you suggest? AN/I? RFC? ArbComm? This hardly seems suitable material for any of those. The forum we're in right now seems to me exactly the proper one for a general discussion of the fate of an individual article about a nonnotable elementary school (although the discussion to which I'm contributing at the moment does seem rather tangential). Deor (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then if this is part of some larger dispute between you two, there's dispute resolution.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I already knew why he disagreed with the redirect—to wit, because he disagrees with the "standard practice" and with the notability guidelines in general. Deor (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You said standard practice was to redirect. I agree. Someone reverted you. I tend to agree redirect is the way to go. But did you ask why the other user disagreed with the redirect? That's the next step. No need to bring it here when the redirect can be handled through normal consensus.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say that I didn't "want to delete". Indeed, in the second sentence of my nomination I gave reasons why the article does not satisfy the general notability guideline and is therefore worthy of deletion. Considering Colonel Warden's comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodside Primary School, Grays, one might reasonably conclude that any attempt to discuss the matter with him would be futile. Deor (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (And by dispute resolution I include any attempt to discuss this. The talk page is redlinked, and there's no discussion on the talkpage of the editor who reverted).--Cube lurker (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Things have certainly changed since my last comment. I prejudged poorly in thinking a redirect was the way to go. Improvements to the article move this into keep range.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing notability due to a lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, or if references are provided to satisfy verifiability, Merge to Pontnewynydd. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education says "Most, but not all, schools for younger children don't meet this standard and are therefore frequently merged or redirected." WP:ORG says "Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or local chapter of a club) may be notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead." Edison (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep The topic is notable as one would expect for a substanatial educational establishment and so is easy to expand from the detailed sources available. The nomination was not compliant with our deletion process and it does not appear that the nominator actually wants to delete the topic. Instead it seems that he just wants to own it and is reacting in this way for tactical reasons. There is no policy or guideline requiring any special suppression of such topics as WP:SCH failed to establish a consensus. As the Wikipedia Foundation has an explicitly educational mission, it should give good priority to topics of this sort. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did address it - the topic is clearly notable as it has significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Your contrary opinion above is counterfactual. As for ad hominem, please note that the nomination started in this vein and so WP:SAUCE is applicable as it is unfortunately the case that false assertions of this sort may be believed if they are not robustly refuted. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Epic AGF fail. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Edison, we're not trying to figure out whether "elementary schools in general" are notable: we're trying to figure out whether this specific school meets either WP:GNG or WP:ORG. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Don't just try to delete something because you automatically believe all elementary schools are not worthy of having articles. This is as notable as any high school is, it mentioned not just in local news, and producing England's youngest pop star Demi Holborn, with the school singing back up for their album. Dream Focus 05:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep noteability clearly established by the Colonel's improvements. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Dream Focus 05:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - notability has been established from the content and sources added to the page. TerriersFan (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep unusually, this primary school actually is notable in a number of ways, all described in the article. Aiken ♫ 23:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Meets notability guidelines. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 09:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as notable in spite of the predudice shown against primary education. Several sources provided. Primary schools may not be afforded automatic notability, but they are not automatically non-notable. DiverScout (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Edison. LibStar (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Most primary schools are not notable, but this one appears to be based on the current state of the article, including the award, the much better than average outcomes, and the national news coverage. DES (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Unusual school which may well be notable, as I learn from the comments above. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2010 (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.
- 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. There are a couple of observations (discounting the fact that I closeda similar debate as "keep" earlier today). First of all, procedural keeps have been ignored; every article should be debated and judged on its own merits. Second, any votes that make no judgement on the article but on the way this deletion discussion has been opened (from an admin point of view, there has been absolutely no wrong-doing with the method) have been ignored. There has been debate on the referencing, and whether the sourcing is enough to pass WP:N; some put forward as substantial references are not reliable (busesonscreen and londonbusesbyadam). Without these, there is a lack of referencing, and I find the concerns expressed by those voting delete perfectly valid in this regard. Discouting a number of votes I found to be inadequate, I found a consensus to delete this article. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
London Buses route 71
- London Buses route 71 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are adequate references to demonstrate that this bus route exists, and the information in the article is well-sourced in places (though with much unreferenced material), but there is no evidence that it meets the notability test of WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Some of the material in the article could be incorporated in an expanded List of bus routes in London, so a merger may be appropriate. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge. Bus routes ought to be held to the test of "significant coverage in reliable sources". Otherwise they cannot be the subject of reliable encyclopaedic articles. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Perhaps discussing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport, where you will see there is currently a discussion about this, would be a good idea before starting to make deletion requests? It makes it all very complicated, especially as, if you look, you will see that the standard procedure for rubbish articles is just to redirect them to List of bus routes in London. Arriva436talk/contribs 19:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not aware of that discussion. After a comment in another AFD on the number of these articles, I just took a look at five or 6 articles on London buses, taking one from the 0-99, one from the #100-#199, and so on ... and found that they all came nowhere near the notability threshold, so I AFDed them. I wish the good folks at WikiProject London Transport success in their cleanup, but it looks to me like it hasn't got very far: 100% of my sample appeared to me to be clearly non-notable. There are 303 articles in Category:Bus routes in London; are any of them actually notable? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course some of them are notable. Good examples are the bendy bus routes, the Routemaster routes, especially the 159 for example which was the last route to be run by Routemasters. Arriva436talk/contribs 20:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree about the 159 ... and maybe a dozen or so have some possibility of a claim to notability. But I took two random samples and found 90% of them had no claim to notability, and no evidence of it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course some of them are notable. Good examples are the bendy bus routes, the Routemaster routes, especially the 159 for example which was the last route to be run by Routemasters. Arriva436talk/contribs 20:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural keep for now, there is already ongoing discussion on this elsewhere. Jeni (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The assessments there seem pretty shoddy. For example, this comment praises London Buses route 187, but I see no evidence there of notability. Meanwhile, Jeni contested a series of PRODs for West Midlands bus routes for which there was no evidence of notability. If WikiProjects don't follow accepted standards of notability, then editors really do not have valid grounds for complaint that community-wide forums are used to remove non-notable material. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why are you choosing to ignore the discussion and mass AfD articles? You have noted in a comment somewhere that the discussion has been ongoing for a week, what you have failed to notice is that there is currently a couple of editors already going through each bus route article, assessing them for notability, adding references where needed and redirecting where notability isn't there. I see this as a pointy nomination more than anything. I'd have thought an admin would be setting an example and contributing to a discussion rather than these rash nominations. Jeni (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not ignoring that discussion; I am assisting in the process of getting rid of utterly non-notable material. You offer no arguments whatsoever for keeping any of these articles, and are mass-reverting any PRODs, without even bothering to assess notability. That's the pointiness: your immediate, blind reversion of any PROD, even of the most non-notable bus routes. I suggest that you stop trying to disrupt the re,oval of articles on non-notable topics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is noted in the discussion you claim to be assisting in that we are currently redirecting the non notable routes. Why are you trying to get these articles deleted against the existing process? To be honest, I feel an ANI thread coming up if this continues. (Note: My keep is a procedural keep, I'm making no judgements on notability here). Jeni (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's try again. What exactly is your reason for objecting to the deletion of this article? Do you have nay evidence of notability? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read my original !vote and you'll discover my reason for objecting to the deletion. Not exactly rocket science. Jeni (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, it's not complicated at all. Your reasons for removing the West Midlands PRODs were that you asserted notability for those bus routes, even tho there was no evidence of notability and no claim of notability. Those reasons were indeed clear: clearly nonsense. If you think that this is a notable bus route, it's little wonder that you don't want the wider community to scrutinise the notability of any such articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read my original !vote and you'll discover my reason for objecting to the deletion. Not exactly rocket science. Jeni (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's try again. What exactly is your reason for objecting to the deletion of this article? Do you have nay evidence of notability? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is noted in the discussion you claim to be assisting in that we are currently redirecting the non notable routes. Why are you trying to get these articles deleted against the existing process? To be honest, I feel an ANI thread coming up if this continues. (Note: My keep is a procedural keep, I'm making no judgements on notability here). Jeni (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not ignoring that discussion; I am assisting in the process of getting rid of utterly non-notable material. You offer no arguments whatsoever for keeping any of these articles, and are mass-reverting any PRODs, without even bothering to assess notability. That's the pointiness: your immediate, blind reversion of any PROD, even of the most non-notable bus routes. I suggest that you stop trying to disrupt the re,oval of articles on non-notable topics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's relevant because it is evidence that all your procedural ruses are just a form of disruption, and that your actual purpose is trying to keep non-notable material. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The entire purpose of using PROD is to remove articles to whose removal nobody will object. If anyone objects for any reason at all , the deletion is not uncontroversial, and they can and should remove the prod. To object to their doing so is entirely besides the point--the point is that they do object, and that therefore whoever placed the prod cannot assume that their view is the consensus without a discussion. To remove it was the right and fair procedure--to object to it is being argumentative to no purpose, since the thing for the prodder to do, is argue the issue, and see if people will agree. To say that a contested matter is uncontestable is a self-contradiction, unless of course someone thinks when they are sure they are right, they are infallible. DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course anyone can contest a PROD, and I would deplore any suggest of them being uncontestable; the point is that unless there is agreement, there should then be discussion at AFD. Unfortunately, in this case the editor who contested the PROD has also been opposing the existence of the AFD discussions which are supposed to allow consideration of the arguments, and has steadfastly refused to offer any reasons to keep the articles whose PRD she opposed.
- What's the point of having AFD and PROD as separate processes if an editor who contests a PROD don't offer any reasons to keep the article, and denounces the AFD? It's like a Congressman demanding that time be set aside for a debate on a topic and then refusing to speak on the substance and denouncing the existence of the debate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The entire purpose of using PROD is to remove articles to whose removal nobody will object. If anyone objects for any reason at all , the deletion is not uncontroversial, and they can and should remove the prod. To object to their doing so is entirely besides the point--the point is that they do object, and that therefore whoever placed the prod cannot assume that their view is the consensus without a discussion. To remove it was the right and fair procedure--to object to it is being argumentative to no purpose, since the thing for the prodder to do, is argue the issue, and see if people will agree. To say that a contested matter is uncontestable is a self-contradiction, unless of course someone thinks when they are sure they are right, they are infallible. DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural keep – since there is an on-going discussion elsewhere, please withdraw discussion to that location. The article can be renominated, if necessary, after the conclusion of the current discussion. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on procedural keeps. These should be disregarded. Any editor is entitled to bring an AfD, regardless of whatever discussions are taking place within a Wikiproject. The community at large decides notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on its own merits. All established bus routes are major features of the local geography, and if an article can be written, it should be; whether they are better merged is a question of style. The information is encyclopedic. . If people look at these articles and decide that they want to keep them, that makes a practical policy of exception to the GNG.There are other ways of showing notability, and it is in fact contrary to the current WP:N guideline to say the the GNG is the only way. Personally, I think trying to remove establish borderline articles is a very poor use of time here, when there are so many important things like unsourced BLPs to attend to, DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Notability offers another way only where there are agreed separate guidelines.
- There is a very good practical reason for GNG: that it is an inevitable consequence of the core policy WP:V. Without it, an article can exist only as either original research or as repetition of primary source material.
- In the case of these articles, most of the material is simply unsourced, a situation which is all too common with topics which fail GNG. This article is a good example of that: it has only 2 footnotes, and there is no indication of whether the content is from primary sources, or some unreliable source, or is just something made up. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Disruptive deletion spree made without due diligence per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 74. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AGF, please. I did indeed follow WP:BEFORE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete or redirect. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources. If we were just going to have a bunch of people repeating the same bad faith accussations on every page we should have just nominated these together to save them time. None of the above keep arguments are remotely relevant, most disruptive and none address the existing policies or guidelines as required by WP:CONSENSUS.--Crossmr (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Some evidence of notability for this one. (Note I have voted delete for several others.) Orderinchaos 17:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm curious about what you think that evidence is. I see two refs to the bus fansite londonbuses.net, but none to an independent reliable source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The incident in 1982 documented in the article, if it could be verified from newspapers of the day, would be a reasonable claim to notability for this route. However, as an Australian student, my Factiva access doesn't cover it. Orderinchaos 12:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely you don't seriously mean the "incident" in which a bus driver got past an obstacle without hitting anything??? That's so trivial that it's barely worth mentioning; London bus drivers are skilled people and do that every day of the week. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The incident in 1982 documented in the article, if it could be verified from newspapers of the day, would be a reasonable claim to notability for this route. However, as an Australian student, my Factiva access doesn't cover it. Orderinchaos 12:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable third party sources - name drops only. Karanacs (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all information contained in this article is verifiable. The majority of London bus routes are notable, and the system is notable. Dew Kane (talk) 04:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Long established route. All info can be sourced. Arriva436talk/contribs 16:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Well written with a decent history behind the route, most of which has been backed up with useful, reliable sources. Editor5807speak 18:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Other articles nominated:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 183
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 231
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 237
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 331
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 372
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 42
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 68
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 71
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 73
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 74
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 75
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 77
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route E8
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus route 28
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus route 33
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus route 7
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus routes 51, X51 and 951A
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capital City Green
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 68
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 77
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus route 997
- strong keep per above. Extremely well referenced article. Okip 15:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. Did you even read the article? The current version has not a single reference to a reliable source independent of the subject, never mind one which gives the topic significant coverage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Was just about to say. "Extremely well referenced" being a total of 4 reference, one of which could be considered reliable, but is the government site - the local government for every bus route will likely have something on its site, as bus routes are common things, much like my street or my house. Neither of them will ever get an article, but each are just as verifiable. Aiken ♫ 16:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Brown at least one of your articles in this bus purge you have nominated has been speedy closed per WP:SNOW. Other articles, such as Capital City Green has 7 references, and unanimous support for keep (8 editors), and you are still arguing their is no unanimous decision. is completely independent, so please strike this part of the sentence Okip 16:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it even reliable though? It doesn't look it. And still, you write "extremely well referenced" which couldn't be much further from the truth, especially when 3/4 aren't even reliable, and the last one is a passing mention as is standard with bus routes as I explained. Aiken ♫ 16:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. Did you even read the article? The current version has not a single reference to a reliable source independent of the subject, never mind one which gives the topic significant coverage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Again, there's just nothing here to suggest this is anything more than a run-of-the-mill bus service one might come across every day. No more remarkable than my street or house. Aiken ♫ 16:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete BHG nails it; not one keep !vote has substantively addressed (or redressed) any of her concerns. Eusebeus (talk) 09:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have added additional sources and detail to the article. These include the Routemaster Omnibus - a substantial work which devotes a full page to the history of this route. There is so much detail in this source that I do not have time to do full justice to it today and so have selected some highlights such as its commentary on the infamous Petersham Hole. The comments of nay-saying editors such as Eusebeus are thus refuted. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The only one of those sources which could remotely be considered as a claim to notability is Routemaster Omnibus, which is indeed a "substantial work". But while it gives substantial coverage to the highly notable bus, it gives only one page to the route 71. Claiming that one page out of a 288-page book is "substantial coverage" makes a mockery of the whole concept of WP:GNG. We might as well say that anything mentioned in print anywhere is "notable".
In any case, at this point Col W has demonstrated that he is not actually interested in good faith efforts to examine notability according to the community's long-established guideline WP:GNG: I have just noted how at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 331 he argues for keeping the article because he believes it will become notable in the future. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The only one of those sources which could remotely be considered as a claim to notability is Routemaster Omnibus, which is indeed a "substantial work". But while it gives substantial coverage to the highly notable bus, it gives only one page to the route 71. Claiming that one page out of a 288-page book is "substantial coverage" makes a mockery of the whole concept of WP:GNG. We might as well say that anything mentioned in print anywhere is "notable".
- Our guideline states "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content.". That's what we have in these multiple sources and so we're good. What you should please explain, given that we now have these references, is why you continue to argue for wholesale deletion contrary to our editing policy? Note that this policy is stronger than a guideline and mandates that we should retain such material which, at the very least, would assist our general coverage of London buses. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Col W, if you are going to post so prolifically in these discussions, please do try to give the impression of having read the notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The only source referenced which is both reliable and independent if the subject is Routemaster Omnibus, yet you claim that there care "multiple sources" which pass meet GNG's criteria?
That claim is either a deliberate lie to mislead other editors, or evidence of an inability to tell the difference between one and two. (You may choose to clarify which, but it makes little difference to the outcome).
Your own reference to the book lists route 71 as being mentioned on only one page, so you have offered no evidence that the coverage is substantial ... and since the 288-page book covers the history of the bus design and manufacture as well as its deployment on the routes, it is implausible that the average route could have received more than one page of coverage in total. Of course, it may be that some exceptional routes did receive much more detailed coverage, and that route 71 is one of those routes: are you claiming that this the case? And if so, just how much coverage does it give route 71? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussion of these sources is not productive when it seems that I am the only one to have consulted them - you'll just have to take my word or buy them yourself. I have added another source in which the service is condemned as "probably the worst in the world". This is brief but passes the test of significance in that it requires no OR and there are supporting details. And, as the observation was made in Parliament, it was more than significant, it was important. Now please address the more important question of policy, i.e. WP:PRESERVE. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Col W, if you are going to post so prolifically in these discussions, please do try to give the impression of having read the notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The only source referenced which is both reliable and independent if the subject is Routemaster Omnibus, yet you claim that there care "multiple sources" which pass meet GNG's criteria?
- Keep - Major bus route in major metropolitan city as these routes are all integral parts of a city's transportation system. Even the basic tenant of WP:NOTABILITY provides for common sense. As DGG said, this can be expanded and if a consensus of users feels a topic passes WP:GNG, then it does.--Oakshade (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2010 (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.
- 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 Speedy delete a7, still no assertion of notability, will salt. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nate musiq
- Nate musiq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable musician. Article has been CSD-A7 twice and creator repeatedly re-introduces. Needs formal AfD to put a stop to this nonsense. GregJackP (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for obvious notability concerns, and consider salting if there is a real recreation issue. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per A7 as an unremarkable singer with no claim to notability in the slightest. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2010 (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.
- 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 speedily deleted by User:Nyttend, "A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content." Non-admin close for housekeeping. Glenfarclas (talk) 04:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"sunday-funday"
- "sunday-funday" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD (without reason) WP is not a dictionary Codf1977 (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete The activities of a non-notable group of students from South Carolina are the stuff of an encyclopedia article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable madeup neologism. Not sure db-club applies, as this article is about a club event, not the club itself. (Needless to say, of course, I support getting rid of this article.) Glenfarclas (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, db-group. Hairhorn (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Nothing even close indicating or hinting at notability in the slightest. -Quartermaster (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Extremely non-notable, no sorces, made up in school one day,no reason to have an article on this.Dinosaur Dan1 (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. The article asserts unverifiability by saying, "The events that surround this new definition have been concealed by the parties involved and are revealed only to those individuals who are included in their weekly operations." If the subject is a secret and only known to the participants, there's not much point in trying to write an encyclopedia article about it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy deleted with snow. Nyttend (talk) 04:06, 31 March 2010 (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.
- 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. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Republic of Ireland national football team 2010s results
- Republic of Ireland national football team 2010s results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Perhaps we would wish it were otherwise, but Wikipedia is a sports almanac, among other things. Whether we like it or not, Wikipedia is top-heavy on sports and entertainment articles that are contributed by its many editors. Articles of this sort are a legitimate spinoff of the article about the Irish national team in general. Technically, you're correct, but there's not even the remotest chance that this article will be deleted. Mandsford (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into an article that serves as a summary of happenings in Republic of Ireland association football. National team results could be included in a similar fashion to other yearly articles, such as 2009–10 in English football, 2009–10 in Belgian football, 2010 in Brazilian football, or 2010 in American soccer. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 12:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep' appropriate and standard for m of an article for every national team in every sport. Merging would be a matter of style only, not substance DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep worthwhile article providing information on matches played by an international football team. It seems reasonable to split by decade due to the otherwise lengthy article size? Eldumpo (talk) 08:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. An appropriate fork. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge current content to 2010–11 in Irish football or something similar to account for the fact that the article doesn't include Northern Ireland. This seems to be the current convention for national team results. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2010 (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.
- 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. Icewedge (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FC Suðuroy
- FC Suðuroy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a sports team that was founded just this January; unlikely to be notable. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep for now. I dont know much about sports, but it seems there is a claim that this new team will be competeing in the "premier" league. If that is the same as the English premier leage, the besta one, (the NBA to basketball in USA) than its notable as any team that is part of any national sports best league.... PamelaBMX (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article about FC Suðuroy should NOT be deleted, because the football club is playing in the best division of the Faroe Islands 2010, the Vodafonedeildin. FC Suðuroy is the former VB/Sumba, which doen't excist anymore (it excist as FC Suðuroy) and which was a merge between VB Vágur and Sumba in 2005, but as I said, VB/Sumba has been replaced with the new name FC Suðuroy, named after the island Suðuroy (South Island). It can be compared with the Faroese football club Víkingur which is also a new football club, founded in 2008 (website: http://www.vikingur.fo/), a merge between the former GÍ Gøta and LÍF from Leirvík. FC Suðuroy can also be compared with the football club 07 Vestur, which was founded in 2007, it was earlier FS Vágar (these clubs are from the island Vágar, FS Vágar was a merge between the football clubs MB Miðvágur and SÍF Sandavágur), which was founded in 2004. 07 Vestur is now playing in 1. deild (second best divison). I don't understand why Wikipedia can't have an article about a football club which is in the Faroe Islands Premier League????? Is it not notable enough to be in the best division in Faroese football? I have seen several articles on Wikipedia about less important Faroese football clubs, which are not in the best division, so this doesn't give sence to me. EileenSanda (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Playing in a country's top flight makes a team notable. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - a team playing in the highest possible division in its country in the most popular spectator sport in the world is obviously notable, irrespective of its age. It's like claiming that the Charlotte Bobcats weren't notable in 2004 because they'd only been formed that year..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable team, playing in their country's national league. Eldumpo (talk) 08:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Even if the Faroese league isn't very good, it remains a national top flight. As such, the clubs competing in it, including this one, are inherently notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2010 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Acid3. Tone 15:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Acid4
- Acid4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The first few words say it all "Acid4 is a perhaps upcoming series...." It is not clear that this will definately be released, and there is not significant coverage in reliable sources, just some rumours and out-of-date specualtion. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N Pontificalibus (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per the crystal ball and the nominator's reason. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Smallman12q (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Smallman12q (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Frankly I think that Acid1, Acid2, and Acid3 could be pared down by 90% or so also, but I suppose that's an issue for another time and place. Glenfarclas (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The test has been confirmed by the author of this series of tests, Ian Hickson, that it is to be developed and released when specific conditions are met. Due to the nature of these conditions it is uncertain when the releasedate will be but it is certain that it will occur. The subject of this article does not have much coverage yet but once the first of the conditions are met there is likely to be more coverage. If this argument is not compelling then I propose this article be merged into Acid 3 until such a time as it is deemed suitable to be split again in order that this information is not lost. Thorenn (talk) 04:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Regardless of what the author says, we need significant coverage in reliable independent sources to justify a seperate article. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: As the article says: "development will begin when [...] three of the four major rendering engines [...] that pass the Acid3 test". So it is time to wait if IE9 or Firefox will make run. It is only a time of a few weeks(or maybe months) that something will happen. So let the article as it is! mabdul 08:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. That the author of the previous Acid tests intends to create another at some point is all well and good, and I'm sure we should have an article when it happens and gains sufficient coverage, but none of that has happened yet. Miremare 17:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was created on 21:54, 18 October 2009. Its April 1, 2010 now. He has had more than a few months to work on it. I think you should wait until the thing is released before making an article for it. Perhaps just incubate it for now. Although honestly, having it around isn't hurting anything. The Wikipedia isn't running out of space. Dream Focus 04:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge content as small note in Acid 3. Development hasn't even started yet. The author's confirmation doesn't anchor this article at all- he says that the subject does not exist, but might someday. --King Öomie 15:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "might someday" is not so correct: he gives a correct date when the development will start(/maybe started already and let it free): when 3 of 4 layout engines will pass the acid3 test! mabdul 00:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Acid1, Acid2 and Acid3 which would be best dealt with together. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2010 (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.
- 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. mostly due to the lack of coverage from reliable sources JForget 15:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better Days (webcomic)
- Better Days (webcomic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I think this webcomic lacks the significant coverage by independent, reliable sources which would establish the topic's notability per the primary notability guideline or provide the basis for a verifiable, neutral encyclopaedia article free of original research. Whilst the article appears to give many sources the majority are primary - the comic itself, the author's website and their LiveJournal postings. The remaining sources are mostly unreliable and should not be used as sources at all. One source, Crush Yiff Destroy, describes itself as "created for our own amusement, to document the more outstandingly bizarre aspects of the furry fandom, and with no particular agenda or program in mind". It gives no indication of any editorial policy and appears to effectively a private blog for a few individuals with a forum attached. The Webcomic Overlook is a blog, with no indication that the author is considered an expert in their field. The Webcomic Book Club gives several reviews but it part of a defunct website and again gives no indication of any kind of editorial policy or why it should be considered a reliable source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. One of the reviews simply reads "Best. Comic. Ever. Further details at 1am." (since it was posted in 2004 I don't think further details are forthcoming) and the other reviews don't indicate that the site is anything more than what it says on the tin - a book club. Both the Crush Yiff Destroy and Webcomic Book Club coverage were mentioned in the previous AfD which ended as a near unanimous delete. The remainder of the sources given are trivial coverage by a website reporting web traffic statistics, a listing on a non-notable web comic index and advertising for a 1999 Off-Broadway play. Since the previous discussion I do not think that any new sources that would establish the comic's notability have come to light - most of the sources being used in the article pre-date the last discussion - and without the unreliable sources that are currently being used the article would be nothing more than plot detail and a basic description of the website's content and services - not an encyclopaedia article. It has still not been demonstrated that reliable, third party sources exist and per WIkipedia:Verifiability "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.". Guest9999 (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — A member of the GOCE who worked on the article described it as well-sourced and written. The heavy site traffic and popularity show clear notability. (Sugar Bear (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- No, pageview stats do not establish notability, see WP:POPULARPAGE. Glenfarclas (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if the number of page views was a good indication of notability - which it is generally accepted not to be - it is unlikely that a comic with this level of traffic would qualify [edit on that basis]. The website that hosts the comic (along with the artist's other projects) has an Alexa ranking of 61,029 ([8]). At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ctrl+Alt+Del, a webcomic with the considerably higher ranking of 6,586 ([9]) and around ten times the traffic was deleted. Guest9999 (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Seems to have recieved more third-party coverage in the past four years. --Carnildo (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The only third party coverage that's in the article which occurred in the past four years is the blog The Webcomic Overlook, as a blog it is not reliable and should not be used as a source at all. Guest9999 (talk) 09:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When I ran all of these sources by the RS noticeboard, all of them seemed to pass without any objection. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- If you are referring to the discussion here then you yourself seem to give reasons the sources shouldn't be considered to be reliable: "Aside from the poor quality of the writing, neutrality issues and the fact that it's a blog, TWO links seem to have been frequently added as external links by the author", "this is essentially a forum. Reviews are user submitted. It's essentially like citing "some guy". This wouldn't fly in a review of a print comic". Guest9999 (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I appear to be wrong there. Being that no one objected to these sources, and they are still used in the article that I first came across them, Jack (webcomic), without objection, they don't seem as I first viewed them. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- If you are referring to the discussion here then you yourself seem to give reasons the sources shouldn't be considered to be reliable: "Aside from the poor quality of the writing, neutrality issues and the fact that it's a blog, TWO links seem to have been frequently added as external links by the author", "this is essentially a forum. Reviews are user submitted. It's essentially like citing "some guy". This wouldn't fly in a review of a print comic". Guest9999 (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When I ran all of these sources by the RS noticeboard, all of them seemed to pass without any objection. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Weak Delete. If there was mainstream criticism of the comic for racist overtones, as the article seems to indicate (the hyena thing), then an article might be warranted. But I can't find proper Reliable Sources that so indicate. I also see a lot of livejournal links in the sources, none of which are likely to pass muster. For now, I would suggest merging what sourced content there is to the author's article. I'm happy to keep if sources are found, but I haven't had any luck. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article about the author was deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Naylor in 2005. Guest9999 (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per WP:RECREATE. It doesn't seem to have gained much notability since the last AfD and does not have many reliable outside references in any case. Howan (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Not only is this completely non-notable, but it is a horrible a violation of the spirit of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons to use unreliable sources like the author "The New Meat" writing in "Crush! Yiff! Destroy!" and the writer "El Santo" of "The Webcomic Overlook" to label a living person "racist". So I am removing the worst parts of this until we can delete the rest. I'm looking forward to someone trying to make the compelling argument that pseudonymous authors of webcomic furry fan blogs have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, so we're going to let them call people "racist" on Wikipedia. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The intention wasn't to call the author racist. The original was written in neutral terms to state that some reviewers are of the opinion that the author was racist. I make it a point to present all points of view, even those that conflict with my own. Secondly, this is not a biography. This is an article about a comic strip. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Yeah, no. Pseudonymous writers of unreliable, self-published blogs are not going to be used as sources to call living people "racist" on Wikipedia. I reverted your edit to the article. If you feel really strongly that we need to use Wikipedia to document when pseudonymous bloggers call living people "racist," you could try to build a consensus for changing Wikipedia policy on that before adding any more poorly-sourced "racist" accusations to this or any other article. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not particularly interested in arguing with you, but I don't believe that the point the reviewers were trying to make was that the author was racist, but that they were exaggerating the content of the comic to make a point. There is a storyline in the comic which deals with racism, and the comments of the reviewers appear to be an overtly emotional response to that, or the idea of using race in an anthropomorphic comic (which is not a new concept, but the reviewers seem to be entirely unaware of Maus or Fritz the Cat). I'm going to leave the reviewers' accusations out, but I restored the rest of the text you deleted, which wasn't inflammatory. (Sugar Bear (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Yeah, no. Pseudonymous writers of unreliable, self-published blogs are not going to be used as sources to call living people "racist" on Wikipedia. I reverted your edit to the article. If you feel really strongly that we need to use Wikipedia to document when pseudonymous bloggers call living people "racist," you could try to build a consensus for changing Wikipedia policy on that before adding any more poorly-sourced "racist" accusations to this or any other article. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The intention wasn't to call the author racist. The original was written in neutral terms to state that some reviewers are of the opinion that the author was racist. I make it a point to present all points of view, even those that conflict with my own. Secondly, this is not a biography. This is an article about a comic strip. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Strong delete per nominator's thorough analysis of the sources. What isn't primary is trivial or unreliable or both. Sharks also makes a valid argument in that some of the content was BLP violation. (Note: I quick-failed a GA nomination.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Guest's excellent leg-work chasing the sourcing issue. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete- the citations do look very poor, a lot of links to live journal chats? Weakly cited article with subject of doubtful notability. Recent assertions through these citations that the writer was/is a racist just attract attention to the citing issues. Off2riorob (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sourced mostly to livejournal? Delete with extreme prejudice. Hipocrite (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2010 (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.
- 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. Consensus at this time is in favour of deleting this page. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jordan Anderson
- Jordan Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Artist fails WP:MUSIC. He is a double bass player with minor achievements. Angryapathy (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note This is the first AfD for this particular article. A previous AfD occured for a race car driver by the same name. Angryapathy (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep I found a review (published in the Seattle Times). According to University Week, he composed Drafts, "a work which won him the award for best original composition at the International Society of Bassists convention". This, together with other references in the article, is sufficient to pass WP:MUSICBIO. --Vejvančický (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Being a double bassist, he is bound not to have a large amount of coverage; however, what coverage there is is suprisingly good. I have added his profile from Seattle Symphony Orchestra's website and a few other bits, including info on the prize mentioned above, and have tidied the article up a little --Jubilee♫clipman 18:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete Orchestral principal double basses don't normally have articles. An article could be justified by multiple reviews of solo performances, but those offered so far are too weak IMO. Do we really want to have a series of articles on members of the Seattle Symphony Orchestra? They may be online savvy, but they're not the Berlin Phil. --Kleinzach 05:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete, I agree with Klein. No doubt this young performer is an excellent musician, but so far his achivements and his impact in the music world are not (yet) notable (the SSO is a good orchestra but let's be honest, it is no Berlin or Vienna Phil, Concertgebouw or American Big 5 orchestra)). Also, he isn't the winner of a major competition and hasn't had a notable solo career.--Karljoos (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete, per Kleinzach and Karljoos above. I don't think being principal bass of any orchestra, Seattle or Berlin, constitutes notability in itself. I would need to see more evidence of his impact as a soloist or composer to be convinced that we should keep the article. --Deskford (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just checked — neither of the two principal basses of the Berlin Phil, Matthew McDonald and Janne Saksala, has an article, even though Janne Saksala also has an established career as a soloist. --Deskford (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Jubilee♫. I'm seeing enough coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:BIO. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:05, 5 April 2010 (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.
- 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. Icewedge (talk) 07:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Satvir Rathi
- Satvir Rathi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PROD removed. No demonstration of notability, just a vague claim that seems to only just preclude speedy deletion. An unreferenced autobiography possibly written for self-promotion. DanielRigal (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indication of notability.--Vejvančický (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete promotional article of a non notable entertainer.--Sodabottle (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable. Perhaps User:Satvir.rathi will understand that if or when he becomes notable, someone else can write about him. But he's just is not there yet. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable. Evalpor (talk) 05:06, 30 March 2010 (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.
- 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. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retain (disambiguation)
- Retain (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No article title is ambiguous with the term. The page lists only partial title matches which are unlikely to be referred to as simply "retain". older ≠ wiser 12:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Actually, RETAIN is ambiguous with the article title, not to mention Retain International and WP:RETAIN, all of which do seem plausible to be referred to as "Retain"; and it is helpful to have the link to Wiktionary for articles that overlink common words. Glenfarclas (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- after removing the partial title matches, only one article ambiguous with the primary topic remains, and it can be handled with a hatnote on RETAIN. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep with the WP link, plus two entries and several others links validly in see also, I think this could be useful. Boleyn2 (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. First of all, the dab is not just about "retain" but also "retained" and "retaining". Many dabs on Wikipedia include variations of the root word and don't require separate dabs for each variation. Second, partial matches are fine if it describes a kind of thing the dab is about--in this case, "retain" (which is the perfect passive particle of retention), "retained" (retained firefighter), and "retaining" (like retaining wall). —Eekerz (t) 01:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There aren't any Wikipedia articles ambiguous with "retained" or "retaining" though, just partial title matches. No, partial title matches are not fine even when they describe a kind of thing or whatever else. We've already been through this elsewhere, but for other editors, see also:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dusky
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of things described as painted
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of things described as pied
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lurking
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of titles with "Darker" in them
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of placenames containing the word "new"
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places beginning with Costa
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Designated
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On wheels
- User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 7#In space and In space
- User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 2#Breaking and List of phrases including breaking
- -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And why aren't partial title matches acceptable when they describe the root term? Is not water retention a type of retention? Is not a retaining wall a type of object that retains something (i.e. dirt)? What is the big deal? While I can understand not including a link to something like "The Thing that emerged from the retaining wall" (a fictitious made-up name of some bad b-movie--or something), a link to "retaining wall" is most definitely appropriate. —Eekerz (t) 13:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's ambiguous with the ambiguous title, the entry is acceptable. Disambiguation pages are not list articles. Lists of types of retention, for example, would be a separate page, a list article. Please see the list of AfDs above for an explanation of the deal (not a big deal, but a deal). -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And why aren't partial title matches acceptable when they describe the root term? Is not water retention a type of retention? Is not a retaining wall a type of object that retains something (i.e. dirt)? What is the big deal? While I can understand not including a link to something like "The Thing that emerged from the retaining wall" (a fictitious made-up name of some bad b-movie--or something), a link to "retaining wall" is most definitely appropriate. —Eekerz (t) 13:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There aren't any Wikipedia articles ambiguous with "retained" or "retaining" though, just partial title matches. No, partial title matches are not fine even when they describe a kind of thing or whatever else. We've already been through this elsewhere, but for other editors, see also:
- Again, these terms are ambiguous with the title. Retained firefighters can be referred to as just "retained". A retaining wall is a type of wall that retains something and, hence, could even be included on retainer. It's silly to create a list of retention types when the dab page can handle them since it's just a glorified list anyway and more logical to put retention types there since it's all just a matter of wording. I could create redirects to the many ways of labeling a term: for wall (disambiguation) ("wall (retaining)", "retention wall", and "wall of retention"), "retention (wall)" for retention, "retainer (wall)" for retainer, etc... —Eekerz (t) 20:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see especially Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Designated and its result. Designated is to designated hitter as retained is to retained firefighters. WP:POINTy redirect creations would probably end up being deleted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, these terms are ambiguous with the title. Retained firefighters can be referred to as just "retained". A retaining wall is a type of wall that retains something and, hence, could even be included on retainer. It's silly to create a list of retention types when the dab page can handle them since it's just a glorified list anyway and more logical to put retention types there since it's all just a matter of wording. I could create redirects to the many ways of labeling a term: for wall (disambiguation) ("wall (retaining)", "retention wall", and "wall of retention"), "retention (wall)" for retention, "retainer (wall)" for retainer, etc... —Eekerz (t) 20:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And, if you're going to be that restrictive about dab pages, then prepare to clean up 99% of them because they contain partial title matches. Form is a good example (and, I see from this edit you didn't seem to mind all the partial text matches, incidentally...). Good luck getting away with removing all of those kinds of forms! Otherwise they're just gonna get thrown into the "see also" section, cluttering it up--with sections, even... So it just makes sense to allow partial title matches in dabs that directly refer to a kind/type of whatever the dab is about. —Eekerz (t) 09:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We are cleaning up other dabs. Some partial title matches are also ambiguous. But see also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And you didn't clean up Breaking either, despite having a history with it and it containing many links to articles with "breaking" in their names. What's with the double standard? —Eekerz (t) 21:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and feel free to tag other pages for cleanup or discussion as needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as jhunter says, and ill say here, the only WP articles called "retain" can get by with a hatnote on the top of each page. NB one of the articles is barely an article anyway. all the rest of the content is overambitious attempts to help readers find all uses of this or related words on WP. thats really the job of the reader, to make broad links in their searches for knowledge. just imagine the precedent set: a disambig page for EVERY word in the language, with links to searches for each appearance of the word in titles. nothing about the word "retain" deserves special treatment, so "ignore all rules" wont apply, unless someone can give a reason for abandoning very sensible guidelines for disambig pages.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep & CLOSE. The page already lists 3 items of contention: RETAIN (caps), "Retain International" and WP:RETAIN. Plus, there is the obvious need for new article "Retain (law)" as meaning to transfer funds to bind a lawyer to a retainer as counsel, which conflicts with the police seizing all money of a suspect. Anyway, the obsession to delete every budding dab-page is a waste of time, and hinders writers from just checking the dab-page and writing the next related article. Should Wikipedia have a dab-page for EVERY word? ...well it just about does already: that ship sailed a long time ago, with now over 121,000 dab-pages. There is even a "Google (disambiguation)" listing the company, the search-engine name, a misspelling of "googol" and Barney Google, etc. Please stop these frivolous AfD debates on notable subjects and multi-use titles. Frivilous AfDs keep admins from performing valuable tasks, and pretend to be discussing merge or hat-note updates, without even contacting the authors of the related articles, such as "RETAIN" which would need a hat-note for "Retain International" and such. This debate needs to be CLOSED and moved into the talk-pages of related articles, as a discussion about changing their hat-notes. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The self-ref is properly on the base name, leaving only the link to the primary topic and the link to Retain International. Disambiguation pages do not disambiguate possible future Wikipedia articles. If you or another editor would like to create the "Retain (law)" stub, this disambiguation page could then be speedily kept. Otherwise, it can be speedily re-created if the article is created in the future. That ship has not yet sailed, and these frivolous disambiguation pages, not the AfDs, are the problem. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So, why didn't you clean up Form and Breaking again? Many partial title matches there... Wikipedia:DAB#Partial title matches is contradictory. Baltimore Zoo can still be referred to as just "Zoo" (or "The Zoo") in and around the Baltimore area (and beyond if the context is Baltimore). Who decides what distance around a place is relevant to include on a dab? And how is that "distance" defined in non-physical locations? How obscure is obscure for inclusion on a dab when referring to a plant/animal species or small unincorporated towns? Seems quite petty to me... —Eekerz (t) 20:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have noticed that a dab page such as Form or Breaking needs to be cleaned up, you can tag it with {{disambig-cleanup}}. Whether you do that or not, though, that other pages need to be cleaned up isn't relevant to this discussion. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS again. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're missing my point. The fact that you purposefully passed up removing partial title matches from dabs shows you don't believe that policy to be correct. So, why are you trying to get retain (disambiguation) deleted then? —Eekerz (t) 02:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. With only two ambiguous articles, this can be addressed in a hatnote. older ≠ wiser 14:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are you voting again when you're the one who created this AfD? —Eekerz (t) 20:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very strong keep Firstly, the nominator voted twice to try and boost the delete count. Secondly, there are a number of disambiguation pages that house a couple of entries ala Beef Wellington (disambiguation) and Amy Hennig (disambiguation) which were both created by me. WP:OTHERCRAP. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 10:34, 3 April 2010 (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.
- 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. JForget 15:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eleni Alexandris
- Eleni Alexandris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:MUSICBIO in that is not notable. Codf1977 (talk) 11:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable singer and reality show contestant. Fails WP:BIO RadioFan (talk) 11:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per above, notability has not been established. EuroPride (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
what can i do to make sure that my page will not be deleted ???please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anasta grego (talk • contribs) 12:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC) — Anasta grego (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- @Anasta:You have to find and cite multiple reliable and independent sources. Possible coverage in the Greek language is allowed, of course. --Vejvančický (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Her participation in the Greece's X-Factor was noted by the Inside Toronto. However, that's all I found via Google searching for latin and Greek transcription of her name. Btw, she wasn't the winner of the competiton. --Vejvančický (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ -Vejvančický my sources are reliable because i know this singer personally and she gave me her biography.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anasta grego (talk • contribs) 16:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You should have a read of reliable sources for what is meant by reliable and also about conflict of interest. Codf1977 (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice. Bio info from the subject is not counted as a reliable source for fairly obvious reasons. There are no references other than to youtube, facebook, etc. As it stands, the article doesn't even claim anything that could meet Wikipedia's criteria anyway, so far as I can see. Good luck for the future, though. Peridon (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i have just added a new External link that confirms her partitipation in Greek x factor what else do i have to do..i am new here please help thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anasta grego (talk • contribs) 16:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To find her, one has to find and click on the 'singers' button, then she's in the 'male and female over 25' section. Basically all that establishes is that she took part in the Greek XFactor. And some of the text is rather familiar looking, having read this article under discussion. The first few paragraphs, in particular. "what else do i have to do"? You have to provide references that show some notability under WP:GNG and complying with the policies listed above by Codf1977. Peridon (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anasta grego (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)does anyone of you has facebook ?? i need help immidiately..Anasta grego (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- i am really stupid ...this is very importand for me and i cant do it :( Anasta grego (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- i think i ve found a solution ...the only thing that might delete my page is that this singer is not notable well ive read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MUSICBIO#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles and this singer has at least one of them Has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network...so what can i do now ??? Anasta grego (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry, her participation on X Factor does not establish notability. There are hundreds of participants in nationally televised singing competitions like X Factor and <insert country here> Idol, the finalists might be notable, the others are not. This person was a participant in a reality show, she was not the subject of the broadcast. Criteria 12 of WP:BAND cannot be interpreted as "has been on TV".--RadioFan (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
but she was a finalist 4th place is not bad!!! and she gave many interviews in radio and tv!!please guys dont delete my page !!!Anasta grego (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable enough, at least not yet. Anasta, you say she gave radio and TV interviews; if you can post a link to one of those interviews it would help. Please understand that there is nothing personal about this. This discussion is not about Eleni herself. We're not talking about how good she is or how well she sings. I'm sure she is very good. But the article has to meet Wikipedia's standards. One requirement is that she is "notable". That means that there has been independent recognition of her - news stories about her, critical reviews of her work, etc. The recognition has to be in independent, reliable sources - not just what she says about herself, not just facebook and IMDB and press releases. This process may seem unfair to you and I am sorry, but it is necessary. Without standards, Wikipedia would not be an encyclopedia; it would be just another bulletin board where anybody can say anything she wants. If this article is deleted, but Eleni goes on to become more famous (in other words newspapers start to talk about her), then the article could be recreated. --MelanieN (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2010 (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.
- 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 as per consensus and the absence of calls for deletion beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Capital City Red
- Capital City Red (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are adequate references to demonstrate that this bus route exists, and the information in the article is well-sourced, but there is no evidence that it meets the notability test of WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Some of the material in the article could be incorporated in an expanded List of bus routes in Cardiff, so a merger may be appropriate. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This is a high profile route with many unrelated Google results. I find it hard to believe that this should be nominated when there exists an artcile for every London bus route, the majority of which have no references at all. Take London Buses route 167 as an example. Welshleprechaun (talk) 12:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Where is the evidence that this bus route meets WP:GNG? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It satisfies the conditions listed on WP:GNG which you admitted yourself - reliable sources. If you look at the references, you'll see they're independent. Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any evidence of significant coverage. What do you think meets that test? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It satisfies the conditions listed on WP:GNG which you admitted yourself - reliable sources. If you look at the references, you'll see they're independent. Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Where is the evidence that this bus route meets WP:GNG? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep easily meets the GNG. This is actually one of the better bus route articles out there. Jeni (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence please, not assertions. Where exactly is this coverage which meets GNG? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at the article, it's already there. Do you always hound users who disagree with you at AfD? It seems that way. Jeni (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a discussion, Jeni. Editors say things, and ask questions. The aim of any consensus-building discussion is to seek reasons to make a decision, and asking for clarification is an important part of examining raesons. I'm sorry that you are confused about the difference between that and hounding
- Anyway, I have indeed looked at the article, and I see nothing which amounts to substantial coverage of this route. You disagree: so which articles do you think meet the criteria? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at the article, it's already there. Do you always hound users who disagree with you at AfD? It seems that way. Jeni (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence please, not assertions. Where exactly is this coverage which meets GNG? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article has a number of sources (pretty much every third-party reference, really) which provide enough coverage to pass the GNG. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 21:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep as the best-sourced bus route article I've seen to date. Significant coverage in four, arguably five reliable sources means that this passes WP:GNG by some margin. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep is well sourced. A well-sourced article that meets all other inclusion guidelines should never be deleted. Dew Kane (talk) 04:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Well sourced. Notable use of articulated buses. Arriva436talk/contribs 16:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A well written article with plenty of references to reliable sources. Personally I can't see the reason behind it being nominated for deletion in the first place. Editor5807speak 18:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Let's close this thing - I'd like to request a speedy keep and close to this discussion as there is a unanimous agreement to keep the article. Thanks Welshleprechaun 14:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Reply. There is not unanimity, and this is is a discussion, not a headcount. We need evidence of notability, rather than editors asserting it, no matter how many editors pile on. I don't see any evidence that this is a historic route, nor any claim to uniqueness (it's one of 3 branded routes in the city, not the only one), so what about the refs? Here's what we have in the current version of the article:
Ref# | Source | Independent? | Reliable source? | Significant coverage? |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Busandcoach.com: Trendy bendies - artics in the UK | Possibly. It's a trade publication, whose independence can be variable | Maybe. I don't see much sign of claims from the industry being checked against other sources, or any of the articles including comments from critics | No. The article is about artic buses generally, taking two companies as case studies. The second company is Cardiff Bus, of the 11 paragraphs on CB, 2 are about the Red Line |
2 | Davies, Roger (2006). Streets of Cardiff | Yes | Presume so | No sign of it. Used as a ref for trolleybuses on difft routes |
3 | Lockwood, Stephen (2005). Cardiff Trolleybuses | Yes | Presume so | No. It's used to ref the end of trolleybuses, not anything about the bus routes |
4 | Wales Online: Snow chaos hits South Wales hard | Yes (South Wales Echo newspaper) | Yes | No. It's a general articles on the snowfall, doesn't mention any bus line by name, and only has 2 paragraphs on buses in Cardiff. It's arguably too trivial even to deserve a mention in an article on the route |
5 | Police use bendy bus as decoy to trap stone-throwing yobs | Yes (South Wales Echo newspaper) | Yes | No. Doesn't even the mention the line by name, and the article is all about a police operation on a bus, not about the bus route or its service |
6 | Cardiff Bus Overground | No | Yes | It's a route map |
- So where exactly in these refs is the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", per WP:GNG???? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:29, 4 April 2010 (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.
- 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. Consensus at this time supports retaining this article. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Capital City Green
- Capital City Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are adequate references to demonstrate that this bus route exists, and the information in the article is well-sourced, but there is no evidence that it meets the notability test of WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Some of the material in the article could be incorporated in an expanded List of bus routes in Cardiff, so a merger may be appropriate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capital City Red Welshleprechaun (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Where is the evidence that this bus route meets WP:GNG? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Plenty of third-party references which demonstrate sufficient coverage to pass the GNG. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 22:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Easily meets the WP:GNG. Jeni (talk) 08:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Not as strong as Capital City Red but the sources do enough to pass WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question have any of the "keep" !voters actually looked at those refs rather than just counting them?
What we have is- 2 refs to primary sources: ref #5, ref #6
- two refs to systems which predated the bus route: ref #2 "Cardiff's Electric Tramways", ref 3 "Cardiff Trolleybuses"
- One ref to a book on streets which appears to mention the bus routes: ref #4 "Streets of Cardiff"
- One ref (ref #1_, which consists when expanced of the grand total of 180 words
- So where exactly is the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at the sources, and felt that they were enough to pass WP:GNG. Ref #1 is almost enough by itself, but the two references for the preceding system show that the route's history is significant enough to be worthy of note too. Even assuming that ref #4 doesn't provide significant coverage, there's enough there to justify keeping the article. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 180 words is "significant coverage"??? That's not much more text than is found on a bus ticket.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Show me an official definition of "significant coverage" that limits it to over 180 words. A lot of newspaper or magazine articles are under 180 words, but nonetheless amount to dignificant coverage. I'd love to see a 180-word bus ticket though! Alzarian16 (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't want to be rude, but I think a commonsense definition of "significant" paces it well over 180 words. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Some complete articles such as Martin Aslund have fewer than 180 words, but I've yet to see a policy to remove them. But just to keep you happy, I've added an extra source. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The length of the wikipedia article is irrelevant to the notability of the topic.
The reference added is to an article about the vehicles used as buses in Cardiff, and includes only a trivial mention of the Green Line. This ref would help establish establish the notability of Cardiff Bus (if that was in question), but it doesn't establish the notablity of this bus route. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]- If we can't find 180 words to write about a topic then how can it have had significant coverage according to your definition?
As for the reference, it's explicitly about the vehicles used on Capital City Green routes, so if it shows notability for anything it's the route not the company. Although, since it's under 180 words, I guess you feel it doesn't qualify as significant coverage. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Notability is a property of the topic, not of the wikipedia article. Notability depends on the extent of coverage in reliable sources, but per WP:V, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so it cannot be used in assessing notability. An article may be only 180 words long because that is all there is to say on the topic, but it may be that long just because it has been vandalised or because nobody has yet got around to using the sources that exist.
- Back this this particular source: it is not as you claim "explicitly about the vehicles used on Capital City Green routes". It is about 15 new vehicles purchased by the company, to be used to a variety of routes in the city; only 6 of them are to be used on the Green Line, which is not even mentioned until the final sentence of the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If we can't find 180 words to write about a topic then how can it have had significant coverage according to your definition?
- The length of the wikipedia article is irrelevant to the notability of the topic.
- Some complete articles such as Martin Aslund have fewer than 180 words, but I've yet to see a policy to remove them. But just to keep you happy, I've added an extra source. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't want to be rude, but I think a commonsense definition of "significant" paces it well over 180 words. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Show me an official definition of "significant coverage" that limits it to over 180 words. A lot of newspaper or magazine articles are under 180 words, but nonetheless amount to dignificant coverage. I'd love to see a 180-word bus ticket though! Alzarian16 (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 180 words is "significant coverage"??? That's not much more text than is found on a bus ticket.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at the sources, and felt that they were enough to pass WP:GNG. Ref #1 is almost enough by itself, but the two references for the preceding system show that the route's history is significant enough to be worthy of note too. Even assuming that ref #4 doesn't provide significant coverage, there's enough there to justify keeping the article. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question have any of the "keep" !voters actually looked at those refs rather than just counting them?
- Speedy Keep The nomination tells us that article is well-sourced and so merger of the contents is appropriate. Merger is not achieved by deletion and so this forum is not appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep well sourced; easily meets notability guidelines. Dew Kane (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The good list of references clearly shows it meets any notability guidelines. Editor5807speak 18:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'd like to request a speedy keep and close to this discussion as there is a unanimous agreement to keep the article. Thanks Welshleprechaun 14:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, there isn't unanimous agreement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there is. No other editor that has commented here has objected. They have all said keep.Welshleprechaun 15:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- No other is is not unanimous. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking about? This is being unnecessarily stubborn now. Don't you know when you've been beaten? Please do us all a favour and cooperate. Welshleprechaun 16:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- I really don't care whether there are ten people saying that a 180-word article is "significant coverage", or ten thousand of people saying the same thing; I'd need some evidence or reason to change my mind, not the rather threatening language of "don't you know when you've been beaten?". This discussion is not a head-counting exercise, it's suppose to be a reasoned discussion, and I'm puzzled why you are so keen to curtail it avoid that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking about? This is being unnecessarily stubborn now. Don't you know when you've been beaten? Please do us all a favour and cooperate. Welshleprechaun 16:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- No other is is not unanimous. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there is. No other editor that has commented here has objected. They have all said keep.Welshleprechaun 15:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Other articles nominated:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 183
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 231
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 237
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 331
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 372
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 42
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 68
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 71
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 73
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 74
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 75
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 77
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route E8
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus route 28
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus route 33
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus route 7
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus routes 51, X51 and 951A
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capital City Green
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 68
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 77
- strong keep per above. Extremely well referenced article. Okip 15:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And where exactly is the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", per WP:GNG? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment At least five reliable sources used as references that are completely independent. Well referenced in my opinion. Editor5807speak 18:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See the list above. Five refs, but leave aside the primary sources and the refs on predecessor systems, and we have one ref, to a 180 word article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The references in this one should prove notability to anyone. Everyone but the nominator seems to agree its notable. Dream Focus 19:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment "Notability is not temporary: a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, but it does not need to have ongoing coverage." If the bus routes meet some criteria of being historic, unique or otherwise notable then keep otherwise merge to fit notability or delete. Remember that bus routes can change base on ridership needs, financial policy or simple politics. Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that notability is not temporary, and that the test here is not one of recent coverage. But this discussion has been disappointing, in that the "keep" !voters have mostly just counted footnotes rather than looking at what those references actually consist of. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't assume that no one has looked into the references and other information provided. Obviously, bus routes aren't going to get the same kind of coverage as movies would, no one saying hey, this is the best bus route I've ever been on, and here are a pile of awards I'm heaping on it. Dream Focus 05:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You and most editors other editors have restricted yourselves to general comments which are entirely compatible with just counting the references. If you (or any other editor) have actually examined them, then please identify which references you believe establish notability, rather than just relying on vague generalities. So far as I can see the only ref relevant to WP:GNG is the 180-word article. Are you saying that you think that's sufficient? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't assume that no one has looked into the references and other information provided. Obviously, bus routes aren't going to get the same kind of coverage as movies would, no one saying hey, this is the best bus route I've ever been on, and here are a pile of awards I'm heaping on it. Dream Focus 05:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that notability is not temporary, and that the test here is not one of recent coverage. But this discussion has been disappointing, in that the "keep" !voters have mostly just counted footnotes rather than looking at what those references actually consist of. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since Alzarian16 already had this discussion with you above, there is no need for anyone to repeat the same thing. Alzarian16's arguments are more convincing than any of yours. Dream Focus 10:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:GNG by the country mile as do most of these other bus route articles. Please remember this is an Encyclopedia not a bus route timetable. - Galloglass 17:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please remind us which part of this article is a bus route timetable? I certainly can't see one. Have you even looked at the article you are commenting on? I want to get from the university to the castle, I'm not seeing any part of this article which tells me what time my bus is coming? Jeni (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I notice you didn't address my comment about it being unencylopedic. - Galloglass 19:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And yes I have looked at the article, as I do on all the AfD's I take part in. - Galloglass 19:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You never said it was not "unencyclopedic"; you made a vague comment asking us to remember "[Wikipedia] is an Encyclopedia not a bus route timetable", which is confusing to say the least because there's no bus timetable on this article. What is there is a description and history and background of the topic - much as you'd expect for any topic. Granted most bus routes are not notable, but some are. It can look foolish making comments like you just did. Aiken ♫ 00:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I trust the closer of this discussion will review WP:INDISCRIMINATE as this does seem a prime example. - Galloglass 04:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That policy says nothing about buses. Please see WP:VAGUEWAVE. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a notable bus route. Aiken ♫ 00:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. This is very trivial subject, of course, but that aside BHG makes a good point. Even a cursory review demonstrates the material here is not built up on any kind of WP:RS at all, and as such should not be constituted as an encyclopedic topic under our guidelines. I understand fully BHG's frustration, as a result, because she has noted with exceptional clarity the problems with the sourcing of this article and yet has been handed a fine dose of WP:OSTRICH & WP:ATA in return (as the above comment exemplifies). Eusebeus (talk) 09:16, 5 April 2010 (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.
- 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 Textbook A10 No prejudice against recreation as a redirect, if using the proper spelling. Jclemens (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Expulsion of Jews from Thessalaniko
- Expulsion of Jews from Thessalaniko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
On the one hand, the topic is far better covered in the History of the Jews of Thessaloniki page, on the other, the title itself is wrong (no one is likely to search "Thessalaniko" for Thessaloniki), so a redirect too would be meaningless. Constantine ✍ 09:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to History of the Jews of Thessaloniki.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:20, 29 March 2010 (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.
- 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 procedural close - speedy tagged and not an article - not suitable or eligible for AfD (non-admin close). Guest9999 (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Dwarf planet/Archive 3
- Talk:Dwarf planet/Archive 3 (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Dwarf planet/Archive 3|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Maintaining the archives I combined archive one and two and unable to rename Archive 3 as 2 I merged the data into archive 3. I then created Talk:Dwarf planet/Archive blank in an attempt to make Archive 3 no longer visible. Doing so I have created a redirect page. I am asking for a speedy delete of these two articles to help with some spring cleaning :-)
- Comment - that's not an AfD matter, but just about putting the right speedy tag on it until it gets taken care of.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2010 (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.
- 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Winter Haven Plane Crash
- Winter Haven Plane Crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Event entirely fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 07:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails every criteria at WP:AIRCRASH. Indeed, this is so trivial that it don't think it even merits inclusion as a bullet point on a (presently non-existent) list of incidents at the Winter Haven's Gilbert Airport article. Thryduulf (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Well, it's a cool picture [13]. And I'm glad nobody was badly hurt. But we can't have an article every time a small plane has an accident. Mandsford (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Quite a trivial incident. I've heard it said that a good landing is one where you can walk away, and a great landing is one where you can reuse the plane; in general, you have to have a less-than-good landing for it to deserve an article. This is a good landing, and it doesn't pass WP:GNG. Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable; even the article itself says it's the 2nd crash so far in 2010 at Winter Haven. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 04:53, 1 April 2010 (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.
- 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Darren Caesar
- Darren Caesar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE by never having played at a fully-professional level. The only reference in the article shows him playing for SC Cambuur's reserve team. Insufficient media coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Struway2 (talk) 07:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 07:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Please note I am the person who originally prod'd the article, but I did not realise that the reference I added was only for the reserve/youth competition and not the main Eerste Divisie. I can therefore find no evidence that he has played at a notable level, or has wider notability claims. Eldumpo (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. non notable per ATHLETE having not played top level football. no GNG coverage. --ClubOranjeT 09:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:ATH comfortably. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Subject falls well short of WP:ATHLETE, and there is insufficient coverage to merit keeping this article under WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails both ATH and GNG Steve-Ho (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2010 (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.
- 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. -- Cirt (talk) 11:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aaron Clapham
- Aaron Clapham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Declined prod. This guy has never played at a fully pro level: the New Zealand Football Championship is not fully professional. Nor is the Victorian Premier League. Fails WP:ATH. Mkativerata (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mkativerata (talk) 07:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- Mkativerata (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Mkativerata (talk) 07:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Mkativerata (talk) 07:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I removed the prod because I'd expected that the highest-level football league in a country would be fully professional. Question — if the country has no fully professional league of its own, wouldn't this guy qualify under the amateur side of WP:ATHLETE, since he's competed at the highest level possible? Nyttend (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In my view, the highest amateur level in football is the Olympics. In any case, given that football is such a highly professionalised sport (40,000 pros worldwide if I recall), it makes little sense to me to allow local amateur athletes to get through WP:ATH as well. Not arguing with your prod decline by the way - obviously a safe course given your concerns. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The idea that playing in top league of a country despite being amateur is enough to pass ATHLETE has been argued many times before... it would make every Cook Island, Tonga, Bhutan etc first div player that ever played eligible as WP:ATHLETEs. --ClubOranjeT 05:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not arguing; I was just asking, since I wasn't sure. I deal very little with culture-related topics on Wikipedia; I only encountered this one because I was deleting expired PRODs, and I don't think it a good idea always to delete an expired PROD without considering the merits of the reasoning. Thanks for the argument about the people from the less significant nations. Nyttend (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The idea that playing in top league of a country despite being amateur is enough to pass ATHLETE has been argued many times before... it would make every Cook Island, Tonga, Bhutan etc first div player that ever played eligible as WP:ATHLETEs. --ClubOranjeT 05:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In my view, the highest amateur level in football is the Olympics. In any case, given that football is such a highly professionalised sport (40,000 pros worldwide if I recall), it makes little sense to me to allow local amateur athletes to get through WP:ATH as well. Not arguing with your prod decline by the way - obviously a safe course given your concerns. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails ATHLETE, not played professionally, nor has he played at top level amateur - normally taken to mean Olympics or world championships. It is accepted practice to include full national appearances for football, but Clapham has only played at age-group level. Also, it is not his highest possible level as he could play for Wellington Phoenix or any of a number of other professional clubs in Australia and the US where he has actually played Amateur football. Some mentions out there, but all seems to be name drops in match reports and routine sports journalism or club profiles, which don't amount to WP:GNG. Recreate if and when--ClubOranjeT 05:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. A-League is the top professional league in Australia/NZ. LibStar (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2010 (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.
- 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Youngster luau
- Youngster luau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable event - no independent sources on google. Disputed prod noq (talk) 06:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Nothing in Google News, Books, or Scholar, and only 87 Google hits total, most of them primary or blog sources. Just not enough coverage to demonstrate notability. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as just not notable, or merge/redirect to United States Naval Academy. Bearian (talk) 23:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete this article it has indepent postings in the following locations: http://www.usna.com/Page.aspx?&pid=2527&srcid=1029 http://www.usna.com/Classes/1955/JulAug03.html http://www.usna-parents.org/resources/youngster.htm http://www.usnapcgc.org/events_main_right.htm The Younster Luau is an approved tradition at the United States Naval Academy and should not be deleted from Wikipedia.
- how is the US naval Academy independent of the US naval academy? noq (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable. Article is poorly written and probably beyond rescue. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2010 (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.
- 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Picture Perfect (Soil album)
- Picture Perfect (Soil album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Recreated after deletion by AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Picture Perfect (album). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep The reason it was deleted before was WP:CRYSTAL as an unreleased album. It has since been released. There are still no sources (or even an infobox), but the rationale from last time is irrelevant and there is no problem in recreating material that is no longer cystal-balling. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Coverage exists, with which the article can be improved: Allmusic review, Blabbermouth article, another, ultimate-guitar.com, Rock Sound review, Sphere magazine review. Most are definitely reliable sources.--Michig (talk) 09:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - now that it is a released album by a notable artist, and also due to the sources located by Michig. Hopefully someone will now do some work on improving the article from its current sorry state. I'll take a crack at it if I can find the time. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Update - there was some info to work with at the band article, and an AllMusic review exists, plus the other sources found by Michig, so I have expanded the article to the point where it's probably a serviceable stub. The rationale for deleting the article is pretty much defunct, as the album was really released and it's by a notable artist. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:37, 2 April 2010 (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.
- 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 withdrawn by nominator per sources added. Dew Kane (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leo Connellan
- Leo Connellan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable person. Article contains no references that are reliable sources. Dew Kane (talk) 04:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: the article needs work (and I will do some later today), but there is abundant coverage of this person in Google News (including a substantial bio in the New York Times), and he's profiled here in a book published by a university press. Clearly meets notability criteria. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Poet has published several works and is well covered in reliable sources (most notably the New York Times). PDCook (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the subject clearly meets the notability criteria for authors, as above said. --Vejvančický (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2010 (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.
- 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 Speedy delete a7, no credible assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Christian Rader
- Christian Rader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
NN person with no coverage CTJF83 chat 02:58, 29 March 2010 (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.
- 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 as this is pretty clearly snowballing in that direction. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hutaree
fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Ironholds (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:SBST and WP:EVENT with no prejudice against recreation. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable independent sources prior to yesterday (March 28), and no particular reason to think it will receive a large amount in the future. Also no evidence of having lasting effects or geographical scope within the meaning of WP:EVENT. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Michigan Militia, this is part of a long, long story of armed groups in Michigan. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 11:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't believe this has anything to do with the Michigan Militia organization, does it? Kuralyov (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Indeed it does not. The Michigan Militia is a specific organization. This is a separate, militia-type organization, that has some members if the state of Michigan. Not even remotely the same thing. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't believe this has anything to do with the Michigan Militia organization, does it? Kuralyov (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS 63.215.29.202 (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per Ed above.If this gets a lot more attention eventually restore as separate article. -R. fiend (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Keep As of today's (3/29/10) indictment for plotting to attack the US Government, I think the Hutarees have become newsworthy. [14] Axeman89 (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "FBI raids on the Hutaree Christian militia brought to light this formerly little-known group based in Adrian, Michigan." see Juan Cole Informed Comment. Godspeed John Glenn! Will 18:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Big story on CNN today.Ekem (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Pretty serious indictments being brought by the US Attorney's Office. They are indicted on Attempted use of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Also indicted on charges of seditious conspiracy. A plot to use Weapons of Mass destruction to kill Law Enforcement Officers attending a funeral for another Officer, whom, it is alleged, the Hutaree planned to kill also, seems quite notable to me. Similar to Aum Shinrikyo, they may be mostly notable for the current events, but other information on their activities prior to the this will no doubt come up, and a more complete article on the group can be produced. Malbolge (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep This is a pretty major event and is getting sufficient news coverage to justify an article. Kuralyov (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. A brief description may be merited in some list-type article. RayTalk 19:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've seen much less noteworthy items on Wikipedia.Squad51 (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as this group had the potential to cause major damage. While we can't ever know how many would've died, these people had an extensive plan, and the indictment [15] makes clear that this group had a potent plan of action. We should also expand or move the article as more information arises. Just because it's on the news doesn't mean it should be off of Wikipedia. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 19:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the group is now the subject of significant coverage. Picked up by the AP an LATIMES. Also being tracked by the SPLC. [16] Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 20:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- The purpose of WP:NOTNEWS, at least as I interpret it, is to keep us from the minutae of everyday life, and claiming its wiki-worthy, not to allow deletion of something merely because its in the news. The question remains then, is it just a story thats in the news, and thus not encyclopedic, or is it something thats encyclopedic, and just happens to be in the news? I personally feel it is the latter, as I'm reminded of the Branch Davidians, in some respects, or of the incident at Ruby Ridge. That said, I'm willing to concede that the immediacy of the story might make it seem more encyclopedic than it actually is. So if the article is kept now, a re-visit in several months might be worthwhile. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside For what its worth (and this is complete crystalballing on my part), I think its possible that, based on the kinds of submissions this story saw on fark yesteday, this might become some sort of rallying point for right wing politics. Again, this is just a hunch, so take it with a rather large grain of salt. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now at least. Included on some well-known news sites, and the story could well get bigger. If in three months nothing more has happened with them, I'd go delete. Kaid100 (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree with the above. But something tells me this story isn't over. Certainly the article will expand as we find out more about how this 'organization' works. One of the more siginigent domestic terrorism events in recent history. FinalWish (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this illustrates the kind of wrong thinking that gives anybody who REALLY knows and loves Jesus Christ two basic reactions. 1) Sadness that He is so badly misrepresented and that such terrible things are done in His name and 2) The incentive to tell the world that this is absolutely not what He stands for. He was no pushover but He stood for loving enemies, turning the other cheek, going the extra mile, loving one's neighbour as oneself and ABOVE all that - He is the Living God in human form and He embodies Truth. Source, the New Testament, Holy Scripture. You should read it for yourself before you give any credence to anybody who professes to do anything wrong in His name (and anything right come to that). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mummifiedartist (talk • contribs) 20:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Hutaree is a distinctive group. Just because they are lead by people in Michigan does not mean they have any connection with the Michigan Militia. The later name refers to a specific 1990s group that existed in Michigan, with a specific operation and phylosophy. The Hutaree have a different goal and philosophy, although they are at the surface similar. This is a distinct organization which clearly has its own history, and maybe even qualifies as a distict religious organization. To group them with other militia groups just does not make sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The FBI raids were in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana, so this is not just a Michigan organization. The Michigan Militia and other 1990s organizations of that type were focused on state soverignty. That is not at all the goal of this group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep per above - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, they've certainly become sufficiently notable now that we would need a distinct reason not to include them in WP, be they a hundred sticks short of a bundle or more. Trigaranus (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Q·L·1968 ☿ 22:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The following comment was placed on the talk page by another user; I'm copying it here in good faith. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding a deletion of the Hutaree article -- I advise the opposite. An organization that has brought significant attention to itself needs to be known and examined. Its extent, influence, resources, financing, supporters, detractors and more are important to a degree that no one can calculate. This is a crucial aspect of social transparency. It is acutely relevant to our sense of civil peace and order. Finally, on a personal level, and as a resident of Michigan, this is in my back yard and I want to have a clear idea of what these kind of groups are and how they may or may not endanger me. Do not delete, please. Rather, get more information so that we are not resorting to rumor and paranoia as our only resources. Mr. Eldron Long 63.236.226.130 (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This seems to go well beyond one single news story. Drmies (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and don't merge. Hutaree is now notable and apparently different from Michigan Militia.Athene cunicularia (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and don't merge. Many will look to wikipedia for a brief, balanced account for who or what this group is/was. Probably the article will change a thousand times in the next weeks and months, but that is not a reason to delete. WP:NOT#NEWS is relevant to how the article is to be written, not whether there should one. Bucketsofg 22:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This organization is notable as an armed militant organization. Portal:Current events lays out their most recent plan: To kill a police officer and attack his funeral. They might attempt something like this again in the future, or they might fail, but, as stipulated by the P:CE entry, they are clearly trying to wage war against all levels of the United States. If an article about a group that sells pipe bombs to the public, plans to kill law enforcement officials, and was raided by the FBI is not article-worthy, then I don't know what is. The current content of the article may need to be revised to meet NOTNEWS policies, however. On top of that, however, I have seen them training. They are heavily armed militants, not just religious fanatics.--RM (Be my friend) 23:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's become noteworthy, and probably was listed in the FBI database for homegrown militia groups long before they popped onto the American Consciousness. More info than their website is warranted, as that info is rather misleading. -
- Keep There have been nine indictments from this group, it maintains a presence separate from other organizations, and it's going to be in the news for at least two or three years. I agree with the comment above that if this isn't worthy of an entry, what is? Mveric (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
207.181.235.214 (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep* There was a call to delete the Balloon Boy article, but that ended up turning into a real article. We should definitely keep this article for some time and see how it gets cleaned up. If there isn't enough done, then we should at least harvest the article and place it into an article about right-wing militias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishvara7 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - One of the weakest AfDs I've ever seen. The article has adequate sourcing, it is about a notable subject, and (contrary to what the nominator wrote) clearly does not fail WP:NOT#NEWS. Is there an ulterior motive in this nomination? 71.77.21.198 (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assume good faith and remember that ad hominem attacks do little to support your position. WP:NOT#NEWS says in part: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. [...] See also WP:EVENT." WP:EVENT requires that for events to qualify as more than merely news reporting they require signficant geographical scope and/or lasting impact. In what way do you say this article doesn't run afoul of those two policies? - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Asking a question is not failing to assume good faith. DustFormsWords, please assume good faith. The article is about a notable topic and is properly sourced. That is quite sufficient for keeping the article, contrary to any other contrivance for removing the article. Please provide your evidence that the article is not about a notable topic or is not properly sourced. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Questioning someone's motives is a failure to assume good faith but I accept your word you didn't mean to do that; thank you! If you read WP:DEL#REASONS you'll see that a lack of sources isn't a reason to delete an article, and a lack of notability is one of a large number of reasons an article may be deleted. Another reason is "any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia", which includes a link directing readers to WP:NOT, a subsection of which is WP:NOT#NEWS, which incorporates the guidelines at WP:EVENT. As per my comment above, I believe the article fundamentally is not compatible with the provisions of WP:NOT#NEWS. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So far I haven't seen your specific evidence (beyond your opinion and lots of wikilinks) that the article "is not compatible with the provisions of WP:NOT#NEWS". And that's fine, as long as we call it what it is: your opinion. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 01:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bearing in mind that I don't have to convince you, I have to convince the closing nominator, my "evidence" is set out in my first comment at the very top of this thread. The onus in passing WP:NOTNEWS falls upon the article, and to do so it must pass the tests described at WP:EVENT, being evidence of a national or international scope and/or a lasting impact. The events here are so recent that it's impossible to show a lasting impact, so what you're left with is national or international scope, which the article neither asserts nor proves. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bearing in mind that the onus of convincing the closing administrator (not the closing nominator) is on you, let's see if you succeed. As for your comment, "The events here are so recent that it's impossible to show a lasting impact", that completely ignores the argument presented elsewhere in this AfD that being in the news and failing WP:NOT#NEWS are not the same; by that criterion, the events of September 11, 2001 would not have merited a Wikipedia article until October 11, 2001. Your argument also ignores all other aspects of the subject of this article besides the events of the last day or two. But as I said, that's fine to form an opinion on a very narrow perspective as long as we don't confuse your opinion with facts. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- September 11 represented a deliberate and successful planned attack on the contiguous United States by foreign nationals taking place across national and state borders. It clearly passed the "national or international scope" test so you didn't need to get into the "lasting impact" criterion. And, look, Wikipedia isn't a news source. It doesn't need to be on top of events as they unfold. There would have been no problem with not having a September 11 article until October 11. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - Notability seems obvious, and there's a huge difference between being in the news and failing WP:NOTNEWS. — Red XIV (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - It is a relevant entry pertaining to current events and one that will attract interested readers.RickW7x2 (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Notability seems self-evident. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete temporarily per WP:NOT#NEWS, and also to avoid tainting possible future jury members. Revisit this decision after the cases have made their way through the courts. Bwrs (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Regarding "national notability": the suspects were rounded up in three different states and apparently intended to spark a nationwide revolt against the government. On another note: sadly, I can't shake the feeling that a "successful" attack of this sort is always seen as more notable than one that was foiled. Bobnorwal (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep though I have reservations. I'm not too worried about tainting any jury as long as the article keeps to the neutral point of view, but I don't know if this particular group of lunatics deserves their own Wikipedia entry. As a supporting background reference for the next few years, probably until the trial is concluded, I think the article should be retained, or perhaps converted into an article on the progress of the trial. However, in the long term I think they should just be reduced to an entry on a list of dangerous religious groups. I haven't even looked for such an article in Wikipedia (I'm here because of curiosity about today's news), but I think that article should include a tabular presentation for most of the primary attributes of these groups. For example, I think an important dimension is whether the group supports the government where they live, opposes their government, or supports some non-local government. Another interesting dimension for the table might be the degree of militarism, perhaps from 1 for peaceful and passive, 2 for peaceful resistance, 3 for talk about violence, 4 for training to commit violence, and 5 for actually committing violent acts. Shanen (talk) 04:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now added a reference to the fact that this group was identified as an active militia in the United States by the Southern Poverty Law Center's report for 2009. This moves us beyound the events of March 27-30th (although actually it seems to really be March 28th-29th as of yet) and into having at least some context and background. This is the first step to moving beyound news. I think though that fixing the article is both possible and worth-while. Deleting it will only lead to its return as an unbalanced article until people hunker down and give it needed depth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very Strong Keep. This group was planning to wage war against the US government. How is that not notable?? Pristino (talk) 06:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep My first thought after I read the news about these people was "lets read about them on Wikipedia" - I'm sure many others will have the same thought, and they're going to be mentioned again as they all go to trial, and are likely to be mentioned in magazine articles about religious extremism in America in the coming years. 87.80.97.137 (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That was precisely my first thought when I heard about this group. It would have seemed absurd if Wikipedia had no article on the subject. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 06:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it for a while ... after trying to identify the "christian terrorists" ("Kristen grupp planerade attack i USA") mentioned on Swedish Radio, I ended up here via Southern Poverty Law Center. It is at the very least WP:NOTABLE. A future fate of the article, may be a fact puzzle piece of right extremist insurrection using christianity as a propaganda basis. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 08:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as there is plenty of international news coverage showing they are notable. // Liftarn (talk) 11:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Agree with Pristino: "This group was planning to wage war against the US government. How is that not notable??" All the more reason for experienced, neutral editors to keep their eyes on it. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per many, many others above, most especially Pristino. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 13:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is an organization that will be referenced many times and has significant value on current events.Camulus (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is copied from the discussion page. It consists of statements that should have been placed here, since they are even in the format for this section.:
Point 1 against deletion. WP:NOT#NEWS relates to news events, but the subject of this article is an organization. Borrowing words from WP:ORG here, this organization is now noteworthy because it has become the subject of international coverage by multiple reliable, independent sources. Point 2 against deletion. Even if you disagree with point 1 and want this to be a news event, then per WP:EVENT, it was nominated for deletion much too soon. Articles about breaking news events should not be nominated for several days, to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge. This article was created less than a day ago. MetaEd (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Tentative keep: since the article is here and growing slowly but surely, let's see how things unfold over the coming days. There's plenty of time to delete or merge it if it proves not to warrant a separate article.--Witan (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Tentative keep: The Hutarees are presently getting broad-ranging nation-wide news coverage. According to the notability guidelines, "An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time." I think it's too soon to talk about persistence, but it certainly is not beyond the pale of possibility. Bwilreker (talk) 13:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Keep: This is a big deal and may be a starting point for the war on right-wing extremism. There is a trend and with the growth of militias like these, we should see more news coverage and future stories that cite this group. PartyJoe (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Keep: It is ridiculous to propose this isn't relevant encyclopedic material. These arrests are rather significant in the history of domestic terrorism in the U.S. in the early 21st Century, and somebody over with Wikiproject Terrorism should come by and clean it up a bit. This is certainly as relevant as the page on the Nigerian Christmas 2009 bomber, an FA and another failed terrorist plot. The deletion of this article would be a disservice to the Wikipedia community and would indicate a flaw in Wikipedia's deletion process.Neumannk (talk) 06:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Keep: This article is as important and relevant as the Heaven's Gate one would have been on this date 13 years ago. Stroller (talk) 07:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC) I hope the inclusion of the above adds to dialogue and understanding.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So given the overwhelming support for keeping it, when can somebody remove the deletion tag? Even this single incident is of historical notability, if you imagine at some point in the future researching the topic of militia groups in the early 21st century. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that there are outstanding delete votes, unless an admin wants to invoke WP:SNOW (or another form of WP:IAR) and close it early, it's likely it will remain open for the full allotted time for an afd, which is seven days from when it is opened. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WHY ARE YOU DELETING THIS????? IT IS MAJOR NEWS ARTICLE AND A DANGEROUS PRECIDENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND THE PEOPLE OF THE USA!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.55.208 (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't even see why this article is up for deletion, other than that the earliest versions were hastily written and not up to basic Wikipedia standards in terms of grammar/ordering. Nonetheless, even these early versions were sourced. To me it seems obviously relevant. There is a page on Christian Terrorism, and so it would seem logical that this group would qualify as relevant to any comprehensive cataloguing of Christian Terrorist organizations. Neumannk (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With the avalanche of keep votes that have come in, it should be noted that they all basically state the same thing (It's getting media coverage so it should be included). You're pretty much arguing in favor of why it violates WP:NOTNEWS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.29.202 (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Respectfully, I disagree. While I agree that this flood of keep votes does muddy the waters a bit, it doesn't really have any effect on how much we should be applying WP:NOTNEWS. Remember, just because something is IN the news, doesn't mean it falls under the jurisdiction of WP:NOTNEWS, there are other factors to take into consideration. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2010 (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.
- 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where next?
- Where next? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
NN app, with no G News coverage CTJF83 chat 02:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage for this application. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Good faith, but a not-notable application, and likely spam: "purchasable from the iTunes App Store". American Eagle (talk) 03:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, possibly speedy (WP:A7). I was unable to find any coverage in reliable secondary sources. — Rankiri (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, this is spam from a SPA. Haakon (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2010 (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.
- 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wykked Wytch
- Wykked Wytch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
According to this article's talk page, Wykked Wytch was previously deleted after a proposed deletion but then recreated because the deletion was contested. If this is the case, the band's notability has not been demonstrated since recreation. Unaware of a previous proposed deletion, I proposed the deletion of this article earlier this month. The deletion was contested by User:Fences and windows who stated that references would follow. After five days, he had not done so, therefore I contacted him on his talk page. He affirmed that he would add references soon, however it has been another five days and no references have been produced. Wykked Wytch has produced no notable albums; all four albums have had articles in the past which have subsequently been deleted. This band fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for musical ensembles and should therefore be deleted. Neelix (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep referenced now, although band's notability is debatable.--Jimbo W junior (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nominator - The references do not demonstrate that the band is notable, therefore they do not justify keeping the article. My search for adequate references apart from those provided on the article has not suggested that the band is notable either. Jimbo W junior acknowledges that the band's notability has not been demonstrated; the article should therefore be deleted. Neelix (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 22:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 02:07, 29 March 2010 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Metal Church. redirecting per suggestion from the only !voter. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Four Hymns (album)
- Four Hymns (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable demo album. WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 22:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 02:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Metal Church per WP:NALBUMS. I am unable to find significant coverage for this demo and the article consists of little more than a track listing. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2010 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Sonata Arctica. Redirecting per suggestion from the only !voter. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Friend 'till the End
- Friend 'till the End (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable demo album. WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca talk 22:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- relisting comment. ditto --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Sonata Arctica per same reasoning as the debate at the Agre Pamppers AfD (another Sonata Arctica demo). - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2010 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Gorerotted. Redirecting per suggestion from the only !voter. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Her Gash I Did Slash
- Her Gash I Did Slash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable demo album. WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca talk 22:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment. I gave this nominator's other demo album AFD a third week to I might as well relist this one too. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Gorerotted. I am unable to find significant coverage for this demo and therefore it can be adequately discussed at the artist's article - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2010 (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.
- 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. -- Cirt (talk) 11:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CL-WIKI
- CL-WIKI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable wiki application, that's apparently only used on some wikis about Lisp, the programming language. Yaron K. (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2010 (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.
- 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. -- Cirt (talk) 11:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MC Randy & D.J. Jonco
- MC Randy & D.J. Jonco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Was listed as a speedy but has significant edit history The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, can not find Spanish language sources asserting notability, and there are no sources in the Spanish wiki article either to help. Does not appear to have charted anywhere, can't even find reference to the label. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One passing mention in El Pais in 1998 [17] is not enough to satisfy WP:MUSN. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:37, 31 March 2010 (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.
- 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. JForget 00:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First Montgomery Group
- First Montgomery Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable company, fails WP:CORP. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable developer. Created by an WP:SPA whose username matches that of a principal/partner in the group. --MelanieN (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, an advertisement for a non-notable company for which I can't find significant independent coverage. Glenfarclas (talk) 04:17, 29 March 2010 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Ulcerate. Redirecting per suggestion from the only !voter. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Coming of Genocide
- The Coming of Genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable demo album. WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Olaf Davis (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment. I originally closed this as "no consensus" and then reverted myself because I thought that the debate hadn't been sorted. It turns out that it was sorted. Oh well, lets give it another week :). --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Ulcerate - while noting that the Ulcerate article also potentially has notability issues. I am unable to find significant coverage for this demo, and in any case WP:NALBUM suggests that album articles consisting of little more than a track listing should be merged to the artist's page or a discography. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2010 (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.
- 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. JForget 00:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
God of War: Blood & Metal EP
- God of War: Blood & Metal EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:NALBUMS. 3 of the 4 references are blogs. gnews shows limited coverage. [18]. LibStar (talk) 10:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom. Neelix (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Although the Sony blog is much more reliable than most blogs, it's also a primary source given the fact that the God Of War series is developed and produced by Sony, possibly failing WP:COI. --Teancum (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2010 (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.
- 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. JForget 00:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kicks Online
- Kicks Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Un-notable. I couldn't find any result here that was notable for a reference. The results consisted of download links, Kicks Online sites, and the like. There is a reason here that attempts to address the notability issue. Kicks Online being a part of the players' life is not a reason why the article should still remain. BejinhanTalk 09:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No reliable sources found that provide any significant coverage. -Teancum (talk) 12:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So a game with an international community of over 30000 members and coverage via tournies that are posted live on Youtube doesn't have the right to remain on Wikipedia? It has the same scale as games like Audition Online, which does have its own article. I could try to expand this article, because there are some things left unstated, but I don't think deleting it is a good idea. Also, since when does the standard search policy end at just typing in an entry at Google? At Youtube, there are a lot of videos that cover this game: matches, tutorials,and even movies made by the community themselves. Right here Chasimar (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Chasimar — Chasimar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Comment Chasimar, YouTube is not a reliable source. We need reliable sources to prove the notability of the article. If YouTube were a reliable source, this might be another matter altogether. YouTube hits does not necessarily mean notability. BejinhanTalk 02:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete there is no non-trivial independent coverage in reliable sources that I can find, meaning the subject hasn't been shown to be notable. This is no reflection on the game, the infrastructure for reviewing MMOs to the relevant standard simply isn't there. Someoneanother 18:28, 29 March 2010 (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.
- 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. JForget 00:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OmPuff
- OmPuff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Re-creation of speedy-deleted page, unless he has become more notable since. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Recreation of a speedily deleted page is not a valid reason for deletion (you may be thinking of G4 speedy deletion, "recreation of a page deleted by a deletion discussion"). Significant coverage here in which OmPuff is nominated for a Namibian Music Award, which could arguably satisfy WP:BAND. Despite the fact that the official language of Namibia is English, relatively low levels of internet access would give us reason to believe that sources might exist which would not easily be found online. (See WP:BIAS) - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Am I missing something or has no real argument been made here? Shii (tock) 22:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was inclined to read "unless he has become more notable since" as a suggestion that he didn't meet WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2010 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Power Quest. Redirecting as a personal editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Power Quest Demo
- Power Quest Demo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable digital demo album. Demos are assumed non-notable by WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2010 (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.
- 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. Tim Song (talk) 04:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Development and Peace abortion-funding controversy
- Development and Peace abortion-funding controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is extremely biased and appears to be a POV fork split off from Development and Peace (Canada) back in December. While this does seem as though it should merit some attention, it doesn't merit this much, and certainly not in such a blatantly anti-abortion manner. This can be adequately covered back in the main article in a neutral manner, and this fork can be deleted. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a POV fork that is unbalanced and out of context. Some of the information might be useful to expand the section in the main article (Development and Peace (Canada)), but not to the point of giving undue weight. Risker (talk) 02:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; a POV fork. We have strong guidelines and policies against such articles. Ironholds (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Risker, delete User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:59, 30 March 2010 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Hungry Beast. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Leben (TV Presenter)
- Chris Leben (TV Presenter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am nominating this article for deletion as I believe with reasonable motive that it is against the inclusion standards of Wikipedia in context of the stated article being irrelevant, droll and not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia itself. Topclaw (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect to Hungry Beast where this person has whatever notability is possible. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect to Hungry Beast per MichaelQSchmidt's suggestion. Evalpor (talk) 05:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect - seems to fail WP:Entertainer, as he's only been on the one show, and isn't a particularly notable member of the cast. I looked around for anything else on him, but there really isn't much as Hungry Beast appears to be the first show he's really been involved in, and he hasn't got much coverage through that. If things change in the future we can always recreate it then. - Bilby (talk) 05:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect or merge any sourced material. This guy isn't notable - there is no significant coverage in reliable sources - so having his own article is inappropriate. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Hungry Beast. Chris Who? WWGB (talk) 11:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per User:MichaelQSchmidt. Created by an SPA, possible COI problems. Racepacket (talk) 12:02, 30 March 2010 (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.
- 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. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
James, Viscount Severn
- James, Viscount Severn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article refers to the 2-year-old child of British nobles. I suppose this is both a deletion proposal and a question: does the mere fact of nobility confer notability? Because so far this boy's done nothing aside from being born. I personally don't think that, plus a title, should be enough to establish notability. "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person". Information from the Viscount's page could be merged into the Wikipedia pages of one or both of his parents. Leoniceno (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The noble tyke deserves only to be mentioned in his father's article, at least until he has done something notable in his own right. Notability, unlike nobility, is not inherited. Edison (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a child notable for more than a courtesy title. The simple fact of being the Queen's youngest grandchild is likely to ensure continuous coverage. The article states that he has already had a lake named after him. ("In June 2008, to recognise a visit by his father to the province of Manitoba, the Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba-in-Council named a lake in the north of the province after Viscount Severn.[citation needed]") Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Viscount. Herostratus (talk) 04:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly notable and well sourced. Outback the koala (talk) 04:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "British nobles"? They're royals! For crying out loud. Close. DBD 06:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentNot everyone outside a kingdom is impressed by someone being "royal." Please take a look at WP:BIO and state which criterion little James satisfies. Is it as a politician? Being related to someone does not seem to be enough, except to be mentioned in the relative's article. Edison (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On the other hand, he is a British prince, and a member of the royal family (technically in line for the throne, although its highly unlikely thats gonna happen), even if he is not styled as such. For me, the notability is clear. BTW - I am not British, if that is what you were implying. Outback the koala (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think DBD's point was that nobility and royalty are two different things (legally, at least) and that the nominator's rationale gets them hopelessly muddled. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He's a grandson of the Queen and, what, eighth in the line of succession? While some people might not care about that, many do. The fact that I and others like me don't care about (and don't understand the hubbub about Lady GaGa doesn't mean she isn't notable and her article should be deleted. By the same token, the fact that some people aren't terribly interested in the royals doesn't mean they aren't notable. -Rrius (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Grandson of arguably the most well-known monarch in the world, member of the immediate royal family, British prince, eighth in line to the throne, a future Duke of Edinburgh. Sounds notable to me. Morhange (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Being a member of the most notable royal family in the world as well as the grandson of the current reigning monarch automatically makes him notable. In addition, he is a Viscount and has a lake named after him! So by what criteria does this article not meet the Wikipedia standards of notabilty?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for the many reasons above. The nominator appears to be suggest he's the son of any normal earl, rather than the son of the Queen's son. --UpDown (talk) 07:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above, especially Rrius, Morhange, and UpDown. The usual outcomes at WP:AfD has been to keep articles about royalty, especially someone so close to the British Monarchy. Such a well sourced article makes this an easy keep. Bearian (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2010 (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.