Firstly the rationale Non-notable bus route with no significant history to make it worth retaining. is flawed as it asserts the route is not notable but doesn't explain why. Worth retaining is a strange comment as there's no size limit to Wikipedia. We don't have to pick and choose what to "retain".
I put forward a source assessment table that demonstrates that the article passed WP:GNG.
The delete voters largely use terms like "run-of-the-mill" and "routine" but fail to cite any policies or guidelines. Some mistakenly cite WP:ROUTINE which is inappropriate as it refers to events. Then there is the mistake that "local" coverage is not valid, it absolutely is. GNG does not exclude local coverage.
Terms like "non-enclyclopedic" and "interesting" were used which are just opinions and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. While WP:IAR exists, one must put forward an argument for how deleting content improves Wikipedia, and nobody did.
Overturn to keep or no consensus. Garuda3 (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to merge to Uppingham#Buses (or any other target suggested, I think this was the best one presented in the AFD). Or relist to see if consensus on a merge target can be achieved. The keep and merge votes demonstrated there is some notability, even if not enough for a standalone article. None of the delete votes stated an opposition to merging. FrankAnchor 21:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Frank Anchor, like I said in the closing statement, I've got absolutely no objection to facilitating a merge, if some consensus can be developed on whether such a merge could happen and where it ought to go. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 07:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your closing statement was a very good assessment of the discussion. However, it is far more likely that such a continued discussion to gain consensus on a potential merge target would occur if there is a venue for the discussion, such as a relisted AFD, the article's talk page, or the talk page of the merge target (and restored history would make it easier to facilitate this discussion). FrankAnchor 13:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. As per the AfD outcome. GNG was deemed to have not been met by a number of contributors (except the article creator themselves), even when closely analysing the sources' reliability and depth of coverage. Ajf773 (talk) 10:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where do people say that, and how do they back their comments up? You can't just claim "the coverage is too local" without actually pointing to the bit in GNG that excludes local coverage (which as far as I know, doesn't exist) Garuda3 (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Case closed. This isn't the first time you've come here when a AfD hasn't gone your way. Ajf773 (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Most participants did not agree that the four near-identical items of news coverage of how the local government decided to keep funding the bus service for another year, which is coverage of an event, presents significant coverage of the subject, and so deletion gained significantly more support; merger ideas did not provide clarity on how the target article would benefit from the added content. Later !votes were exclusively to delete which means that the closer was reasonable to believe that further relisting would not produce more clarity regarding merging. —Alalch E. 15:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse it's entirely reasonable for the participants to decide that a few fairly short pieces in UK local newspapers (which are of dubious reliability) covering the same funding announcement bu the local council isn't strong evidence of notability. I'm sure it can be restored if there is a concrete merge proposal, but the people supporting a merge either didn't suggest a target at all or suggested adding a list of bus routes in the article about the settlement, which would be an odd thing to do. Hut 8.5 18:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a reasonable conclusion by the closer. DRV is not a re-argument of the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved). Your arguments lost, Garuda3. DRV is not an appeals court, and it has been repeatedly explained to you why this article did not meet GNG (and it is being explained again here). This is just a generic statement of extreme inclusionist beliefs without any real attempt to prove the close was in error. You don't have to agree, but you do have to respect consensus. You can't just claim 4 local publications posting essentially the exact same story counts as a GNG pass and expect everyone to accept it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I respectfully disagree with User:Trainsandotherthings as to the analogy, and agree as to the result. DRV is an appeals court. An appeal is an argument that the judge made a reversible error, not a request for a new trial. The closer did not make a reversible error. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my comments. An appeals court involves a rehashing/retrial of the issue. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
