- List of bus routes in Shenzhen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Firstly, I've found some reliable sources for this page (e.g., List of bus routes and stops in Shenzhen (July 2018)). Moreover, I still regard it unreasonable and totally UNFAIR to DELETE this page while other similar pages (e.g., List of bus routes in Guangzhou, List of bus routes in Hong Kong, etc) were KEPT.
Thus I strongly demand for a recovery of this page ASAP, or send the source of this page to my e-mail at least. Many thanks! Richardcai (talk) 13:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. This is a volunteer project. Nobody gets to demand anything. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse deletion but it's reasonable to ask for an e-mail copy of the work. As Roy hints, you're better off asking rather than demanding. The deletion was valid and correct on the face of it. If you've got independent sources (which I don't think you do at this time), then recreating the article is reasonable. But until the topic meets our inclusion guidelines (WP:N) it will stay deleted. Hobit (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, for large values of hint, I guess. I should also be noted that copies are available at various archives without needing to ask for an email. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn or relist There is in fact no consensus about the acceptability of list articles on bus routes, and the decision in an individual case is apt to be erratic and unrepresentative. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn or relist. Extremely rude DRV nomination aside, I would also have closed this as no consensus. The slight numerical majority in favour of deletion is outweighed by how insubstantial the arguments were ("unsourced" and bare assertions of WP:NOT). Relisting in the hope of attracting some more considered participation also wouldn't hurt, I suppose. – Joe (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn bus routes in a major city like Shenzhen are important, and also very likely to be sourceable in newspapers. Perhaps the references are poor, but I expect that Wikipedia should have this kind of article. The delete statements in AFD are very feeble. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm normally on the inclusionist side here, but I do think that we can't identify a single independent reliable source is a pretty bad sign. Now there is a language issue, but we really need *something* to hang our hat on wrt WP:N. Is the claim you are making that the bus schedules of all major cities are notable? I could perhaps get behind that, but I don't think that view has been shown to have consensus. Hobit (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Further, I think the delete arguments were pretty strong (basically WP:N not met), while the others were a WP:SPINOUT argument (which I think can be valid, but I personally think are fair to give fairly little weight in most cases unless the spinout topic has solid sources) and an OTHERTHINGEXISTS argument. Hobit (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we reading the same AfD? Only one of four delete opinions even mentioned notability. The rest cited the fact that the article was unsourced, a classic surmountable problem, or gave vague nods to WP:NOTTRAVEL, a very weak and subjective argument unless you explain why the page cannot be turned into an encyclopaedia article. To be clear, I think the keep arguments were also weak, but since neither the nominator nor a single delete !voter indicated that they had looked for sources, their absence doesn't mean much. At the end of the day it is up to those seeking deletion to obtain a consensus to do so that satisfies policy; not on others to produce sources to justify the existence of an article. – Joe (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right, I took the "unsourced" to mean "doesn't meet WP:N", but that assumes a degree of WP:BEFORE that is likely missing. Still, given the nom above is pointing us to what I think is the official bus schedule as the best source, I think we likely have a WP:N issue (I can't find anything in a reliable and independent source, but the language issue may be the issue). Hobit (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC) Updated Hobit (talk) 03:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I voted keep, no idea why - probably because I'm not a big fan of WP:NOTTRAVEL to delete articles (this is just to make sure we're not written like a travel guide, it's easily surmountable, but you see it in a lot of transportation discussions.) If someone's found better sources that would help it survive AfD, why not draftify it? SportingFlyer talk 23:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Keep rationale amounts to WP:OTHERSTUFF, it is legitimate to give this less weight, so the close correctly interprets the debate. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
|
