Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 22 March	24 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Random Attacks[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a new martial arts competition division made up by an organization. The only links are to the organization's web page and a youtube video. I didn't find any significant coverage of this from reliable independent sources.Mdtemp (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems like one of those things that fall more under WP:ONEDAY. With it's very specific rules, et al, it seems like it is based solely on one organization's competition idea and format. It's a hard topic to search on, but I didn't see anything that looked like WP:SIGCOV to me. Papaursa (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any significant coverage on this - there were some Google links to tournaments, but no coverage from reliable sources. I don't think it's anywhere close to passing WP:GNG. CaSJer (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. IronKnuckle (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 The Ultimate Fighter: Team GSP vs. Team Koscheck. J04n(talk page) 00:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Watson[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't want to actually delete this article. I want to Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Team GSP vs. Team Koscheck, but the first AFD discussion was pretty heated so I thought I'd bring it here first. I don't he's notable enough to have his own article since he fails to meet WP:NMMA with only 2 top tier fights and fails to meet WP:MMANOT since none of his BJJ awards were as a black belt. He doesn't meet WP:GNG because the coverage is either routine sports reporting or summaries of TUF episodes (making the redirect even more appropriate).Mdtemp (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Team GSP vs. Team Koscheck I voted for a weak delete in the first discussion (for all the reasons mentioned in the nomination), but I think the redirect idea is much better. Papaursa (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Team GSP vs. Team Koscheck - Since WP:MANOTE has clarified its requirements, I can't vote for a keep. Luchuslu (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Team GSP vs. Team Koscheck - Per nom. IronKnuckle (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. J04n(talk page) 00:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Rockel[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP about a retired MMA fighter who fails to meet WP:NMMA or WP:GNG. The article's only source is a link to basic bio and fight record info.Mdtemp (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's close, but he doesn't meet WP:NMMA and I don't see the coverage to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. --LlamaAl (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only two top tier fights, so he fails WP:NMMA, and I'm not seeing enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. CaSJer (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. IronKnuckle (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 the nomination was withdrawn with no opposing comments. TerriersFan (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greenville Christian School[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've looked for sources, but can't find any. There seems to be nothing to say about this institution other than what's on its own website. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is both a primary and secondary school, with a K-12 curriculum. In the vast majority of cases, we keep articles about secondary schools, as described in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. In this case, there is newspaper coverage about the school, such as The South's new segregation, which says "At Greenville Christian School, one of the three private academies here, 357 children start their day with a prayer and a Bible reading. Just three of them are black. Less than a mile away, at public Weston High School, Jarad Avritt is an honor student and editor of the campus newspaper. He's one of only four whites out of 576 students." Here's another article: 5 suspended in bus incident.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - contains a high school and there seems no reason why, with careful research, the article cannot meet WP:ORG. The way forward is expansion not deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I'm withdrawing the AFD. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Once Upon a Time characters, I have deleted the copyvio content. James086 ^Talk 09:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Swan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not independently notable: does not pass our guidelines in terms of coverage and importance. Drmies (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 23. Snotbot t • c » 23:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adding "Morrison" to the Google News search above demonstrates plenty of independent, RS, non-trivial coverage of this fictional character. Jclemens (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources can be found. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bloated WP:OR plot description. No out-of-universe notability whatsoever. As for the remark by Jclemens: I don't doubt that Morrison is notable, but this AFD is about this one character that she's playing. See also the related AFD on the other character articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snow White (Once Upon a Time). --Randykitty (talk) 12:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree wholeheartedly with Randykitty's reasoning. Furthermore, the majority of the summary in this page has been taken word for word from the corresponding article on onceuponatime.wikia.com. Utter solitude (talk) 04:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Bloated unneeded character description. The actress is notable, that does not mean the character is notable. Reliable souces listing this role in a biography of the actress does not mean the role itself is notable enough for an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, as I agree with Utter the pages were created, and whole paragraphs from after the date of page creation on Wikipedia on February 2nd, 2013, were taken from the onceuponatime.wikia.com website. As per the history edit, the page history for Emma Swan on the Wikipedia dated February 2nd is as follows: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emma_Swan&oldid=536181531

And the state of the Emma Swan page on the wikia dated February 2nd (the same date) is as follows: http://onceuponatime.wikia.com/wiki/Emma_Swan?oldid=155889

Open both in separate windows, and tell me you don't see they are nearly identical word for word. I can assure you that the Once Upon a Time Wikia does not and never copies history summaries from anywhere else, and all the summaries written for recaps, individual character pages and pages detailing items or locations were all written by a handful of users who help contribute to adding information to the website. I am very upset to learn the creation of these pages on Wikipedia is as a result of Sonofaphrodite copying whole pages from the Wikia, and taking all the credit for himself in the process of pasting everything in, and unassumingly, several users editing the page after him have no idea they are editing plagiarized content that he did not write. If he did help write *some* of the summaries on the Once Upon a Time Wikia, it is still wrong to copy and paste everything on the Wikia's individual page itself onto here because he obviously did not write the whole page on the Wikia, which is a group writing and editing effort on the Wikia itself. Applegirlz (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bio of an imaginary, non-existant, non-entity. You can't have real-world notoriety by posting an article about something that is nothing more than a plot creation. If you want to argue the real world actress is notable for the portrayal, so be it. But Snow White this thing ain't, and "Emma Swan" has no "out-of-universe" notability to argue. It's right here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snow White (Once Upon a Time), just like Randykitty said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barada (talk • contribs) 03:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Once Upon a Time characters. J04n(talk page) 01:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jilla (film)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

- Previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jilla
Recreated after deletion, but better discuss whether to keep this article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has vastly improved after the excellent work of Tokyogirl. It satisfies WP:NFF now. Salih (talk) 05:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the article has improved and also meets criteria for upcoming films. T4B (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to ~~director~~ producer it is still all entirely rumor and speculation (edited to add) and a kick off party . It fails WP:CRYSTAL . If the project were to get hung up between now and expected beginning of production there is nothing to indicate its demise would in anyway be of any lasting note to anyone. and contrary to the claims above, it most certainly does NOT meet WP:NFF-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be that pessimistic. We have now multiple reliable sources for the article and it even satisfies WP:GNG. Salih (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

just because there are sources doesnt mean that it is suitable subject for an encyclopedia article. having sources is just one of the criteria. meeting WP:NOT is another criteria, and WP:NFF is clear that speculated film projects are NOT. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis you call this a speculation? Salih (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sorry. i have edited my above comment to account for the kickoff party, which, by any means is still not principal photography. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is obviously some fervent fans of this with so many AfDs but it's been filled out with some more pertinent and substantiated material. I still don't think it should be an article until it finishes filming and has the release but I'll give it the green light seeing that they held a puja.Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 19:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Production has begun now (see article). ^King Jakob _C2 20:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- while this article says they have held the puja kickoff party, it makes no mention of actual production; this source in the article says they dont planto start actual production until may.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate until May OR until the beginning of principle filming has been confirmed. Just as I stated last month at the February Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jilla, the planned film DOES have coverage in reliable sources, but not nearly enough to qualify as an exception to WP:NFF. The confirmed pooja is essentially a public ceremony (and press opportunity) to bring blessings upon a project, but in no way acts to confirm actual production. I admire and appreciate Tokyogirl79's work improving the article, but the topic is simply TOO SOON for a separate article. Also as we do not need Jilla (film) as a diambig, the article needs incubation at the more appropriate Jilla. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per significant coverage. NickCochrane (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is what you said at the last AfD, and I will ask the same question I asked at that time in hopes that you might provide an answer this time "Could you point out some actually significant coverage? There are a number of links to gossip and rumors, but no actual coverage." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call IBN Live and Times of India "significant". ^King Jakob _C2 22:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what exactly is the significant content? IBN is just naming writers and director and actors, and rumored actors. the Times is a report of someone twitting that "No I am not involved." seems to me to content that is entirely non substantial. If the project were done, then the writer and directors and actors would be significant, but until there is some actual product, that is just smoke. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the primary notability guideline does tell us that coverage can equate to notability, but the applicable notability sub-guideline for films tells us no "announced" project is a sure thing. Yes, policy instructs that properly sourced speculation can certainly be discussed within these pages, but it also includes cautions. Until we have evidence of filming actually commencing, it IS reasonable to speak of this topic, but the discussion should become more of whether of not the limited coverage of this planned project merits it being one of those rare exceptions which could have a separate article. Exceptions have been allowed, yes... but they had far more coverage and over an extended period of time. Incubating this article for a short while serves the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I said the exact same thing because it's true? This is based on the references, which are significant coverage, already existing in the article. NickCochrane (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying "significant coverage" and I keep reading and all I see is "we have a bunch of people who (oops) a bunch of different people, who want to (no, not me) do a movie sometime soon". That is not significant. You cannot swing a cat in any movie town without hitting a dozen wanna be movie projects. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per above. LenaLeonard (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, confirmed high profile film. -- Dravidian Hero 17:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Once Upon a Time characters[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A typical, and typically inflated, list of characters with extensive if not exhaustive descriptions and summaries "sourced" to Wikipedia articles on the episodes. While WP:NLIST does not give much in the way of guidance, it seems clear to me that the individual entries in the list aren't notable (which WP:LISTPEOPLE does require), that there is an enormous amount of OR and trivia in here, that the fact that some of the characters have articles (Emma Swan etc.), those articles themselves don't pass muster and should be deleted as well. Whatever can be said reliably and encyclopedia can fit in the main article. Drmies (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator fails to advance a policy-based argument for deletion--cleanup, perhaps, but AfD is not for cleanup. The show is notable, and multiple characters, such as Emma Swan, are themselves notable. This is not a list of people, but of fictional elements, so the reference to WP:LISTPEOPLE is erroneous and inapplicable. Jclemens (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let the page stay. Where else can we have the information on it's different characters? Rtkat3 (talk) 1:47, March 24 2013 (UTC)
Keep but merge/redirect the individual articles on each character into this article. If this were put into the main article, it would be too large, so this seems like a valid split. --Jayron32 12:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bloated overly-detailed plot descriptions. I don't see any reason why the few worthwhile details (if any) cannot be included in the article on the TV series. Note that (before seeing this AfD), I took all the independent articles on the characters of this show to AFD here. --Randykitty (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And solve the problems with excessive plot descriptions as RandyKitty says. I don't support putting anything just in the TV series article because if people want to find information on the character, we need a place to do it.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – To me it seems as if the individual entries are notable, though I agree that the descriptions are too long. Merge the individual articles back here and then clean it all up quite a bit. But I don't think that's any reason to delete this particular article. Kevinbrogers (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is an unmitagated disaster of long-winded, in-story description of characters. There is no demonstration that any are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable shows usually have a character list. The article does seem a bit long and perhaps overly detailed. That can be dealt with by normal editing methods though. Dream Focus 14:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. J04n(talk page) 01:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

E107 (software)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Content management system of dubious notability. One of the developers of the system has protested to me and since that developer claims the system has 124,000 registered members and it is six years since this was rejected by the previous AfD, I am prepared to give it another discussion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not finding anything much on google. results peter out after around 800 hits. The register reference given in the article just mentions it as part of a list of open source CMS systems and nothing more. The yahoo reference is taken from a press release at prweb. None of the other references are independent. noq (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since April 2005 this article has been deleted and re-created a few times, including once at e107 (CMS), which I moved back to this title and nominated for deletion as db-repost. Looking through the version history, I can't find any assertion of notability for the product. There are no Wikipedia guidelines for software notability yet, but WP:GNG suggests significant coverage from independent, reliable sources, and there doesn't seem to be any of that online. There is the mention in the 2007 The Register article, and some coverage on a few CMS survey sites which, as specialist websites, will try to be as comprehensive as possible. Wikipedia, on the other hand, restricts coverage on the basis of notability, and as far as I can tell it's not yet notable enough for its own Wikipedia article. Captain Conundrum (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can not find sufficient evidence that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Gong show 23:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. As DGG notes, a well-written discussion of Israel and legitimacy may conceivably be notable, but this is not that. No argument was put forth that this list of views is itself notable. edit: In case I wasn't clear the first time, an article on some topic like this may be worthy, but sufficient consensus says that this article is problematic. Shii (tock) 06:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. I am going to undelete the article, change the title, and rewrite it from scratch to show what the good article conceived of in the "keep" votes in this discussion ought to look like. Too much time was spent in this discussion talking about imaginary good articles, and not enough writing such an article. Shii (tock) 06:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Views on Legitimacy of Israel[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is unclear that this topic is notable and distinct from Anti-Zionism . Marokwitz (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's an essay, not an encyclopedia article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Belongs on some political blog. The very name of the article comes out of the polemic debate and precludes balancing. Zero^talk 03:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointless article. --Ben Knapp (talk) 04:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above views, doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a distinct and notable term, which has been widely discussed in RS and commented on by world leaders. There is no inherent POV problem because there is such a term.Scarletfire2112 (talk) 06:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the searches above show quite clearly that it's not a "distinct and notable term". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be a POV fork from several other articles, including Anti-Zionism, New antisemitism, Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism, Criticism of the Israeli government, Zionist entity and others. Many of these are redundant, and we certainly do not need another covering the same ground. RolandR (talk) 10:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - i love the line up of editors here.....anyway, this term is so clearly used by so many, even Abbas as very specific thing (call it what you want: phrase, neoligism, concept, etc.). it is not a generic thing for a generic article. Soosim (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "keep" because of who is !voting delete?? quality argument you've got there... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's a legitimate term, used by many scholars, journalists and professionals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottyNolan (talk • contribs) 15:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is far more than a political topic. It's a source of concern and attention by not just Jewish communities but also many European and American policymakers, journalists, community leaders and more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsraelUN (talk • contribs) 15:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC) — IsraelUN (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - It may need renaming and some work, but Delegitimization of Israel is very definitely and encyclopedic topic and therefore belongs in Wikipedia. Marokwitz, it is certainly part of anti-Zionism, but there is a whole wrath of sub-articles on antisemitism. Anti-Zionism needs the same treatment. Delegitimization actually falls under both and there are quite a few studies into it. Oboler (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is kept then it certainly shouldn't be on the basis that it is a sub-article on antisemitism. It is perfectly possible to question Israel's legitimacy without being antisemitic. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Article is Public Diplomacy not an encyclopaedia article. To add to Roland's list we also still have "Israelophobia" on the books. Dlv999 (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this "delegitimization of Israel" idea is a propaganda concept cooked up by Israel, which the article seems to present as an, if you'll allow the pun, legitimate subject of discussion. We have anti-Zionism etc already. --Dailycare (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a firm view at this point. But we have articles on things that POV editors may view as "cooked up" by those with a different POV. As long as it meets our notability guidelines. Such as coverage in reliable sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that an editor views a subject as "cooked up" by those pushing a point of view doesn't mean that that editor him- or herself is a "POV editor". I don't usually involve myself in Israel/Palestine issues, because I don't have the energy to cope with all of the POV-pushers, but I can see, from a neutral point of view, that this article is being used to push the opinion that any questioning of Israel equates to antisemitism. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point is this. We have an article on Protocols of the Elders of Zion. We have an article on Innocence of Muslims. We have an article on Mein Kampf. It is wholly irrelevant whether the subject of the article is a cooked up view (or may be a cooked up view). At AfD, we care about notability. One way we measure that is coverage in RSs. If it is covered sufficiently in RSs, we cover it.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entire article seems to be a soapbox for Israeli propaganda points and quotes attacking critics of Israel. The article Anti-Zionism already covers opposition to the state of Israel making this article a clear POVFORK. Sepsis II (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The political terminology, "delegitimization of Israel," has been around since as early as 1973 and has made its way to several academic journals and books. Below is a quick sampling. SimplesC (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sprinzak, E. (1973). Beginnings of politics of Delegitimation in Israel in 1967-1972

Myers, N., Ray, B., Ray, B., & Myers, N. (2010). Review: From Empathy to Denial: Arab Response to the Holocaust, Meir Litvak and Esther Webman Post-Zionism, Post-Holocaust: Three Essays on Denial, Forgetting, and the Delegitimation of Israel, Elhanan Yakira. Columbia Press.

Rosen, E. (2011). Mapping the Organizational Sources of the Global Delegitimization Campaign Against Israel in the UK. Jerusalem Ctr Public Affairs

Keep I think the argument that Israel does not constitute a legitimate state is an argument that is sometimes made in a hit-and-run fashion without time being taken to examine the substance of the argument or the reasoning behind it. What high profile sources have taken stances on the question of Israel's "legitimacy"? It is a term that is used a lot but what arguments, reasoning, and rationale support either position? That is a topic for an article. I think some of the above posts are getting sidetracked by whether or not questioning the legitimacy of the state of Israel constitutes antisemitism or not. Our focus in this article should not be examining motivations. Rather I think our interest should be in the arguments themselves. This should be an article examining positions supported by reasoning. What "reasoning" has been advanced by prominent commentators in support of positions on this question? In some instances dialogue may have transpired by individuals holding opposing positions on this question. In other instances one-sided arguments may have been presented by high profile or influential people or organizations on this question. Whether spoken in dialogue or not, if reliably sourced, such articulations and arguments should be considered valid for inclusion in an article such as this. I think this is a question that warrants further examination and I think an article should be devoted to examining the arguments put forth on this question. Bus stop (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an essay, and not even that good of one. nableezy - 15:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—I don't know the current name of the article ("Views on Legitimacy of Israel"), which doesn't make sense, and I don't know much of the content of the article. However, I believe that there is a place on Wikipedia for an article on the practice of denying Israel's legitimacy, and the specific term "deligitimization of Israel" has been used for decades in a multitude of reliable sources (some of which have been displayed above). We have multiple precedents for keeping articles on topics and terms much less notable than this (in AfD), so on that basis the article should also be kept. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Rename to Opinions of Legitimacy of the State of Israel. Regardless of my personal views on the subject, the question of an AfD is whether the subject is notable. Given the breadth of content regarding the "Legitimacy of the State of Isreal" (both pro-Israel and anti-Israel) I would say that the subject is clearly notable per WP:GNG. Does this type of subject full of POV, NEU, & WEIGHT related minefields? Yes. So are articles about any number of politically controversial subjects, but just because it is politically controversial subject doesn't mean that it should exist.

I would say that two non-involved Admins, both with differing points of view regarding the subject need to go through this article with a fine tooth comb and remove any NPOV issues or at the very least balance them out. All that being said AfD is not a replacement for clean-up, and an article about a notable subject should be kept.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've finally had a chance to read more than a few of the books and articles that pop up when one does a google search. IMHO it clearly meets GNG. I took time to re-read some of the above naysayer !votes, and see that many of them focus not on whether it meets our notability requirements, but rather whether they like its title (that's for the talk page, not an AfD issue), or whether they like its format or how it is written (but AfD is not for cleanup), or whether they like what it says, or whether it is a covered by articles on anti-semitism (two different things, thought they can obviously co-exist), or whether it is cooked up (we cover Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which is cooked up, because it meets GNG), or whether they think it is well-written. To the extent that !votes are based on those notions, I think they carry very little weight. We are focused here on whether it meets our notability requirements, and as far as I can see it appears to quite amply. At the same time, I concur with those who think discussion might be had on its talkpage as to its name, and who are in favor of cleaning it up.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Addresses an interesting aspect of the Israel-Palestine conflict, which based on the sources cited in the article, is deserving of individual attention. Though this article does not describe an obscure sex act, Justin Bieber's haircut, or appeal to the formidable Wikipedian penchant of video games, it is nevertheless notable. Juddhoward (talk) 02:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is adequately covered in other less POV-pushing titles. Anyway, wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It covers topics not terms.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A topic merely meeting WP:N is not enough to merit an article. Under Wikipedia:No original research, "Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." Primary sources are sources that originate written material and secondary sources are sources that summarize the original material provided by primary sources. This article is nothing more than a compilation of sources that originate written material - a compilation of analytic or evaluative claims published by a primary source contrary to Wikipedia:No original research policy. Also, where does this end? Is the next Wikipedia article Opinions on views on legitimacy of Israel? Views on legitimacy of the United States? The topic assumes that Israel is not authorized by the law or is not in accordance with accepted standards or rules, without providing sufficient reliable sources in the article to support such an assumption. This article also is a WP:POVFORK of articles that already adequately cover this topic, such as Anti-Zionism and, given is unsupported premise that Israel is not legitimate, the article can never be written to describe the topic from a neutral point of view as required by WP:NOTADVOCATE. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite from scratch, which is essentially the same as "Delete and start over", except that it keeps the article history. . My opinion was asked for off-wiki. I certainly think this is a distinct topic. and a highly notable one. The phrase is widely used internationally, and it is a phrase that needs specific information. There is no current article that really covers the same specific topic. The present article is, however, biased, and is to a very considerable extent a POV fork. This has been given as a reason for deletion, and while it is a correct characterization of the contents--starting off from the lede--it is a reason for rewriting, not for deletion. Even those saying delete admit the subject is notable, & the only other criteria necessary to justify an article like this is that sufficient RSs exist to write one. It's also objected that WP covers topics not terms; this is flat-out wrong: WP covers topics, and some of these topics are phrases used in various sort of discourse--we have probably a few tens of thousands such. DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's an essay. It doesn't belong here. The search term 'delegitimization' was used to build an essay based on sources that contain that term. Exactly the same process could have been followed using the search term 'brutality'. Plenty of reliable sources that express and discuss 'views on the brutality of Israel' are of course available. Constructing mélanges like these are best left to the experts whose job it is to produce propaganda. It is however quite a good example of the deligitimization of Wikipedia as a decent encyclopedic source for anything to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable topic that deserves article Mont84 (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)— Mont84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. This user's first edit under this name after creating a dummy user page and a self-welcoming user talk page was to attempt to close this discusssion by impersonating an admin. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-While the article itself is a POV fork used to attack individuals and needs to be completely rewritten to give even the hope of a good article. I believe it should redirect to World Jewish Congress#Fighting the delegitimization of Israel at the end of this discussion until someone comes in to actually write an objective view on the various arguments for and against legitimization of Israel.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which article is this article a WP:POVFORK of? The only article I can think of is the Israel article. What other article might the Delegitimization of Israel article be a WP:POVFORK of? Bus stop (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I would make the argument that it is a POV fork because it "The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article." It should probably be inserted into New antisemitism or, as I said above, World Jewish Congress#Fighting the delegitimization of Israel. Unfortunately in those articles it probably wouldn't be able to make the statement that "Delegitimizers use myths and misinformation" which isn't true, some people who question the legitimization of Israel do so from standpoints other than myths and misinformation. The fact that this could be a good article but instead uses a possibly neutral title to attack those who attack Israel makes this a POV fork. Reading through the article I haven't learned a single thing about the rhetoric of the de legitimization of Israel, all I learned is that if you disagree with Israel being a legitimate nation you do so because you are evil, lying, full of misinformation, and against a world consensus.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support you (and anyone else who wishes to) adding RS-supported views as to the illegitimacy of Israel to the article. That's as a number of us have already agreed (perhaps you are one of them) a clean-up matter. But we don't use AfD for clean-up. I'm supportive of it taking place, however (as the article is kept).--Epeefleche (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm actually changing my vote to "delete" because after looking over the talk page, it is a POV fork, and after looking over the history it is clear that some editors intend to maintain it as such. The current article is so toxic I don't think it can be fixed to conform to wikipedia's policies.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 VeggieTales characters. Courcelles 23:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Anderson (voice actor)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people), particularly WP:NACTOR. Article has been tagged with {{BLP sources}} and {{Notability}} since 2010. Article is mainly about VeggieTales, which has its own article. HairyWombat 22:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable, or Redirect to List of VeggieTales characters, where he has a mention for voicing a minor character. --MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I missed List of VeggieTales characters#Dad and Mom Asparagus when I nominated. A redirect to there is better. HairyWombat 15:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. J04n(talk page) 11:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Bartlett[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. This individual fails WP:GNG as he has not been featured in any reliable third-party media. He also fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played in a competitive first-team match for a fully professional club, nor has he been the head coach for such a team in such a match. – Pee Jay 21:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Pee Jay 21:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added an article published in Soccer Coach International, which is a globally distributed Soccer Coaching Publication, http://soccercoachinginternational.com/sci_en/. Ben has been twice published here and this is an independent journal. The 2nd article proposes a previously unpublished concept of the soccer player as the syllabus, a shift in youth coaching from the previous approach of the syllabus being the same for all. The following educational articles support such an approach:

http://www.postgradolinguistica.ucv.cl/dev/documentos/0,680,Syllabus%20Design.pdf http://www.tdx.cat/bitstream/handle/10803/1662/03.CHAPTER_3.pdf;jsessionid=60AF46566C80BEFA3D039C003D998B0C.tdx2?sequence=4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georg3Hartman (talk • contribs) 07:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- These are not an indicator of notability. There are a great many academically published writers who do not have articles on Wikipedia, and with good reason. – PeeJay 07:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was proposed as evidence of reliable third party media with a concept that is articulated, within other education environments, as having value. Appreciate that not all published writers have a wikipedia article. User:Georg3Hartman —Preceding undated comment added 22:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not third-party media if it's written by himself. Plus, any articles he's written won't be about him, which is what we require to satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG. If others have written about Bartlett and his work, that's fine, but not until then. – PeeJay 23:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - The first article was written about Ben by an educationalist - http://www.integritysoccer.co.uk/uploads/3/0/6/0/3060532/coaching_behaviours.pdf - this was published in Soccer Coaching International - http://soccercoachinginternational.com/sci_en/ - a formally published soccer coaching journal.User:Georg3Hartman —Preceding undated comment added 09:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        A small article in a niche football coaching magazine doesn't really count, tbh. – Pee Jay 15:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Coach fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is 14 pages in length and achieved the requirements suggested around articles written about Ben. In respect of being niche; the publication covers all areas of coaching the game of soccer and has global distribution. User:Georg3Hartman User talk:Georg3Hartman 18:25, 26th March 2013 (UTC)

He has also managed in The FA Women's Premier League (Chelsea FC & Colchester United FC); which, whilst not fully professional is within the Wikipedia Top Level Leagues proposed as required for notability. User:Georg3Hartman User talk: Georg3Hartman 18:32, 26th March 2013 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. J04n(talk page) 11:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American College Personnel Association[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article, in the current state, has several issues ... issues that originally led me to tag this article with a {{Db-g11}} tag due to the article, in the current state, seeming like a self-promotion. Here are a couple of the issues this articles faces that led me to that conclusion:

The article was started by Acpa-collegestudent, with "ACPA" being the same initials as "American College Personnel Association". This makes this article's creator seem to have a conflict of interest.
The only cited source, at the present time, is American College Personnel Association's web site. In other words, the only source this article currently contains is information that was provided directly from the subject of this article ... once again, conflict of interest.
As stated above, the only source is its subject's own web page, meaning that this subject is only cited from one source; due to only one source being cited, this leads to questions regarding this subject's notability.

...but since this article doesn't seem to look like a promotion to at least one editor, let's discuss. Steel1943 (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 2. Snotbot t • c » 02:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Okay, the article is written like promotional BS and I can understand the unhappiness with that. But this professional organization has been around since 1924 — heading fast for a century — which means burden of proof, from my perspective, is on the argument to delete. Bowling Green State University holds the "American College Personnel Association collection" in its special collections, consisting of 135 linear feet of material. That's a crapload. HERE is their brief history of the organization, which definitely counts towards GNG. They note that the first name of the organization was "National Association of Appointment Secretaries" prior to a 1931 name change. Bottom line is that Wikipedia SHOULD have an article on this organization, although the piece as it currently sits needs to be fixed with a chainsaw. Carrite (talk) 03:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disagreeing at all that this seems like an important organization, but you would not be able to determine that by the way this article is written at the present time. Due to the lack of citations, this article is borderline WP:OPINION, even with the detailed timeline of events. This article's information is a topic of speculation until more of this work can be cited from a third party source. In other words, this article might need to be deleted until a version of this article can exist that is able to be attributed better by third party sources. Steel1943 (talk) 06:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Automatic Strikeout (T • C • AAPT) 20:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom, in case that was not clear. Steel1943 (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To stress my point about this article being an advertisement, looks like an editor recently found that there was a copyright violation/plagiarism on this article, and removed it in this edit: [1]. Steel1943 (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there has GOT to be significant coverage out there about this organization. Google News finds 8 mentions in just the past month. Granted these are mentions, not significant coverage, but this pattern certainly suggests a high-profile, notable organization. I'll see if I can find some more significant coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 as a copyvio. -DJSasso (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raman Hrabarenka[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like possible plagiarism, poorly written. Binko71100 (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Aside from that this fellow fails WP:NHOCKEY, the text is a copyvio from his page on the American Hockey League website: [2] Ravenswing 03:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Deleted as a copyvio already. -DJSasso (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Whitney[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Complete plagiarism. (WP:Plagiarism) Binko71100 (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Copyvio of the player's page on theahl.com. Ravenswing 03:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. J04n(talk page) 21:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Express Coventry bus routes[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a National Express, given that one would have to refer to their web site to confirm what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it has no sources. A merger with National Express Coventry may also be a possibility. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 18:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, failure to satisfy WP:GNG, and the localized and potentially transitory nature of the information. Praemonitus (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no indication that this subject meets WP:GNG. It also fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. This is no more notable than a list of convenience stores would be.--Charles (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very clearly fails GNG. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 00:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PRODUCT and there is already some route information in National Express Coventry to cover the key points per that policy. Also fails WP:NOTTRAVEL as a guide to routes from A to B, WP:NOTDIR as a directory of Route information. finally fails the general notability guidelines as it can only ever be sourced to primary sources. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 00:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and other "delete" recommendations above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pawan Kumar Bharti[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously soft deleted. This BLP has been repeatedly created by its subject. The subject, however, is not the topic of any substantial coverage in any reliable source (WP:GNG, WP:BASIC). There's no indication WP:ACADEMIC is met either. JFHJr (㊟) 17:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Zero independent sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete can't see any evidence that the subject meets any of our notability criteria, independent sources appear to be nonexistent. Biographies of people from the Indian subcontinent often claim that the subject is "well known", which is rarely true. Hut 8.5 12:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt No signs of passing WP:PROF (0 citations in Gscholar under full name, searching by initials for Indians is contraindicated due to, well, ridiculous number of collisions), no sign of any sourcing under the Gnews link. Links in article do not contribute meaningfully to discussion. Ray^Talk 15:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. J04n(talk page) 22:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Araas Marivan F.C.[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Part of a large series of unreferenced micro-stubs about football teams in Iran which have not received significant coverage or played at a national level in order to meet notability guidelines. c.f. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ara-e Gharb Kermanshah F.C.. This nomination covers a total of nine articles, for which I believe identical deletion criteria apply. C 679 16:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eight related articles listed below per nomination:

C 679 16:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 16:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. C 679 16:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. C 679 16:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: None of the clubs play at a national level, nor do any of the clubs have a lot of independent coverage on them. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. J04n(talk page) 22:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Bristol[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia isn't travel guide - this belongs on Wikivoyage, not here Davey2010 Talk 16:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree with the nomination. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia, so move to Wikitravel or UK Transport Wiki on Wikia. --Bob Re-born (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable with content already summarised entirely reasonably at Buses in Bristol which already has a table of major routes and at Public transport in Bristol. This list simply becomes difficult to maintain and reliably source using third party sources, whilst both the other articles do (or can) have external links to up to date and reliable timetable information. A redirect to Buses in Bristol is probably a good idea in this case. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per NOTDIRECTORY. I wish there was a single test case before the onslaught of more or less identical nominations... Carrite (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in Bristol, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 17:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 00:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. L Faraone 02:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aidoo (Web Framework)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability expressed, and apparent conflict of interest as per m:User:COIBot/XWiki/soleit.ru — billinghurst sDrewth 16:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me comment on conflict of interest as per m:User:COIBot/XWiki/soleit.ru:

Sole IT, LLC is IT company who created Aidoo Web Framework. Of course, corporate website and the Aidoo's website are on same hosting (Hostgator) and has same IP
Sole IT developed Vitotel (hotel management web application) with Aidoo. And Vitotel website is also on same hosting as Sole IT website

Should I remove some links to avoid conflict of interest mentioned above?

Also Aidoo is just another one web framework which will be opensource shortly. Why not to save information about it in Wikipedia? — Leonid Lapidus 18:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable software article with no RS references; created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look up here, please:[[3]]. Cite:

 Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves

What RS should we have for article about Aidoo except the website and developer website? — Leonid Lapidus 10:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unable to find any coverage in reliable sources independant of the subject. J04n(talk page) 11:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. If anyone wants to transwiki this or any similar pages I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 22:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in North Yorkshire[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia isn't travel guide - this belongs on Wikivoyage, not here Davey2010 Talk 15:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and impossible to maintain reliably using decent third party sources. I don't think any of the "references" are in any way references are they? As external links they're reasonable, but not as refs - they seem to simply link to timetables and stuff. The article on North Yorkshire could use its section on transport having something on buses added to. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Factually accurate, useful information about the world we live in almost-instinct 22:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to have a read of Wikipedia:USEFUL Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in North Yorkshire, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 17:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 00:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep all correct information and change out of date information and bring up-to date, NOTE: all this information can not be put on North Yorkshire due to this long list would clog up that page, therefore this page was put into place. DF2 (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC) - ^{Comment stricken as DF2 is banned sock, retained for context of Blue Square Thing's reply below. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)}[reply]

I wasn't suggesting that! Talk about undue weight!! The transport section at North Yorkshire could use expanding to include a sentence or two on buses as, iirc, it doesn't have any mention of them. I keep on hoping that a keep voter will add that sort of information to one of the locality articles (they need the info anyway to be honest) but it never seems to happen... Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. If anyone wants to transwiki this or any similar pages I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 22:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Tyne and Wear[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia isn't travel guide - this belongs on Wikivoyage, not here Davey2010 Talk 15:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After two and a half years of this conversation, you still don't seem to understand that notability (as far as wikipedia is concerned) means "has been noted by" that is a secondary source must have seen the primary information analysed it and drawn some conclusion. Primary sources just state the existence of and there are primary sources recording the existence of many things but those things like bus routes have not been noted by secondary sources and do not get lists of them published. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and difficult or impossible to maintain reliably using third party sources. The "references" currently in the article are external links in the main as they simply link to repositories of timetables. That's quite useful - as an external link from the suitable location article - but is lousy as a reference. Articles such as Newcastle upon Tyne have good quality transport sections which include information on buses. These are much better in terms of maintainability to a massive list like this. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in Tyne and Wear, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 17:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 00:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nico Estévez[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD contested by article creator, no rationale given. This person fails WP:GNG (as he has not received significant coverage) and also fails WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played or managed in a fully-professional league). Giant Snowman 15:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not managed a fully pro club and he has not received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Has not played at a fully-pro level or coached at one. Also fails WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, individual who hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in his career, due to not playing at a significant enough level. C 679 14:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. The discussion concerning possible merge options may certainly continue on the appropriate talkpages. J04n(talk page) 22:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Big Brother 1 housemates (UK)[edit]

List of Big Brother 2 housemates (UK)
List of Big Brother 3 housemates (UK)
List of Big Brother 4 housemates (UK)
List of Big Brother 5 housemates (UK)
List of Big Brother 6 housemates (UK)
List of Big Brother 7 housemates (UK)
List of Big Brother 8 housemates (UK)
List of Big Brother 9 housemates (UK)
List of Big Brother 11 housemates (UK)
List of Big Brother 12 housemates (UK)
List of Big Brother 13 housemates (UK)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per precedent @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Big Brother 10 housemates (UK), all other lists are hereby nominated with the same rationale applying. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per prior AfD, this FANCRUFT/LISTCRUFT type garbage has no place here. Quite a few BLP violations turn up in those articles as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being on one reality show doesn't make any of these people uniquely notable. Ducknish (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete All~~ per precedent as BLP-related fancruft. Carrite (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all, per argument of Leaky Cauldron below. Carrite (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There is a nucleus of relevant, encyclopaedic and non-infringing material which will benefit from inclusion within the equivalent main article before deletion. The main articles have not been tagged and the delete rationale gives the misleading impression that these articles stand alone. They do not and the associated main articles should be tagged to ensure as fair a sighting of this mass delete to those with only the main article on their watchlist. Leaky Caldron 16:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All in to one Davey2010 Talk 16:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, do you have any idea how ridiculously big that list would be? Let alone the fact it would be a massive list of non-notable/BLP1E people. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all but into their relevant article rather than one big list article, which would be too long. Cut down a lot of the fancruft and merge, for example, List of Big Brother 1 housemates (UK) into Big Brother 1 (UK). Keresaspa (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge appropriately. No policy-based reason for deletion of this (regrettably) notable content has been articulated, but an editorial decision to reformat or consolidate the presentation is certainly reasonable. Jclemens (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge each to its corresponding main article. As I said in the previous AFD, we should just cut down the cruft, not delete the entire information. But why no nomination for series 12 and 13? –anemone projectors– 12:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

because they were not in the category; now

Done Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Also wanted to say that the deletion of the series 10 list created a large number of red links and broken redirects. That's not a reason to not delete but someone has to be willing to do the work if these are deleted and not merged/kept! –anemone projectors– 13:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. I don't get it. This is the normal way of profiling contestants/finalists in major reality TV series, such as Big Brother and X-factor. The contestants are widely profiled, have dozens of hours of TV coverage, featured in newspapers, interviewed etc. Merging such info to the main pages about the series would be unweildly in my view. All that being said, I completely agree that some of these pages are way out of hand, very poorly sourced and filled with BLP violations, which should be removed immediately. We have constant problems with fans trying to create standalone articles and, with a dedicated page to breif, sourced profiles of the contestants, it gives us a valid justification to stop these standalone fan pages. The argument for deleting/merging the pages seems either to be 'I don't like it' or 'it's poorly sourced', which seem weak excuses to remove them! Sionk (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the vast bulk of the unsourced rubbish was added to List of Big Brother 13 housemates (UK) by an anonymous IP on 14 August 2012. The unsourced rubbish should have been removed immediately, rather than being an excuse for deletion of every other similar article. The remaining articles seem to be largely sourced and succinct. List of Big Brother 13 housemates (UK) seems to be the problem! Sionk (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just an WP:IDONTLIKEIT approach. To be honest, I don't really see the need for every X-Factor finalist to have a standalone list. If they need to be included anywhere, it's with an appropriate mention in the season article, with only things relevant to X-Factor, and nothing else, bar a sourced date of birth (and perhaps nationality if applicable). WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid keep reason. Nor is your fan articles thing a valid keep reason (simply create a redirect for that person and SALT it, very simple solution) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. It is quite standard custom and practise on Wikipedia to create sub-articles when it would be disruptive/overwhelming to keep the content in the main article. The words 'bandwagon' and 'jumping' spring to mind when I see all the "merge" votes ;) Sionk (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're right but it is better than the delete pile-on here WP:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Big_Brother_10_housemates_(UK) that led to all this. Leaky Caldron 18:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I voted delete, and I voted redirect in the earlier AfD. Others may be bandwagon jumping, I most certainly am not. The fact is, in this case, most of these people justify a one-liner (their name, their date of birth and when they were eliminated from the house), and little more. Those in towards the end may justify more, but... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. The pages are not in the best of shape, however, they are gradually expanding (see series 1-5) and eventually all seasons will have more complete entries. Merging them into the main article would look terrible, and would make the pages way too lengthy. --Sethjohnson95 30 March 2013 9:13
Keep and clean up The BLP violations may justify page protection, possibly pending changes protection. But given the cultural significance that shows like Big Brother and other reality television have had for our culture (albeit not necessarily for the better), there is certainly more than enough material to cover in articles of this sort. Most participants in a programme like Big Brother are covered in some depth by reliable sources: TV criticism articles and magazines. Keep them, clean them up, find reliable sources, then whack them on pending changes protection so we can keep the BLP problems at bay. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- There seem two possible courses of action: (1) Keep, but purge similar material from the series article (2) merge back a summary to the series article. I have no view on which is better, but we do not need the same information duplicated in both articles . Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. L Faraone 02:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outsiders (2012 short)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable short film, produced by a non-notable studio. No awards, no coverage whatsoever in proper reliable sources, let alone significant coverage. Plenty of promotional fluff in there as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of coverage, lack of notability, fails WP:GNG. Ducknish (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Other than a story in a local paper [4], this film hasn't received any real coverage. It doesn't pass notability guidelines. There might be merit in redirecting this to the production company's page, assuming it survives AfD. I have no true qualms about it being userfied, but it does need a lot of cleanup beforehand. I'll see what I can do. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited it down to read a little more encyclopedically, as the previous entry read more like something on a fan wiki than a Wikipedia article. Hopefully this will make it look better to incoming editors.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks a lot better now, and if you of all people can't dig up more on it, then it can't be notable xD Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed before that creators of articles about films seem to be unable to step back from their preoccupation and realise that hardly any general readers will interpret meaningless noun-free phrases such as "2012 short" to be anything to do with film. If this is kept it needs to be renamed to a meaningful title, such as "Outsiders (2012 short film)". Phil Bridger (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be coverage. LenaLeonard (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, where? All that has been so far is either local or isn't a WP:RS. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Laufilitonga. J04n(talk page) 17:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tupou Veiongo Moheofo[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recommend deletion or redirecting to Laufilitonga. Article does not establish notability for the subject. The article is a genealogical entry and in accordance with WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTINHERITED, Wikipedia is not the place to present this information. The sources provided for this article equate to personal hobbyist websites, which do not meet the threshold for reliability. While I don't have access to the book, as a novel based on apparently real people, we do not know what is true or false, creative nonfiction or documentation and factual. Cindy(talk to me) 21:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 01:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mother of a king sounds more notable to me than all pornstars in wikipedia taken together. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing seems to be notable about her except her genealogy. The article even says, she was "not important politically". 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 20:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Laufilitonga per WP:NOTINHERITED. Staszek's comment makes little sense, and if there's no evidence this person is notable (being the mother of a king, or similarly powerful ruler, isn't an automatic grounds for notability - for example, does anyone whom isn't an avid Roman-era historian know whom Julius Caesar's mother is? And he was a far more notable ruler than Laufilitonga anyway...) in reliable sources, which there isn't, an article is not justified. 15:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

9th Prince[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If you check most numbers, almost all have the same claims yet none have proven their notability through sources.... this one definitely not notable. Jeremy112233 (talk) 04:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Killarmy. The group is certainly notable, and the solo activities of its members should be covered somewhere. --Michig (talk) 08:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. These album reviews and an interview in Village Voice seem to provide just enough in-depth coverage on this artist and his works to warrant an article; otherwise, merging would be my next favored solution as a member of a notable group and a plausible search term. Gong show 19:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Sachs[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Seems to be simply a mid-level manager at a big company. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 01:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references to demonstrate any notability, just press releases from his company. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 06:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 14:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 23. Snotbot t • c » 14:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just appears to be a man with a series of jobs and associated press releases. No evidence of actual notability. AllyD (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. L Faraone 02:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Born Gold[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete -The only reliable reference provided is here[5] which cannot be taken as an independent source as written by a forbes user Leor Galil. Dejakh~talk!•did! 14:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Speedy Delete under WP:A7. Artist doesn't appear to have any previous articles and there's no real claim of unique importance. Ducknish (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please see WP:BEFORE. Whether or not the Forbes article can be taken as a reliable source, there are several others that are: Pitchfork album review (there are also a few track reviews there), National Post 'album of the week' review, Hollywood Reporter, brief Allmusic bio, The Guardian, and given that Born Gold is Cecil Frena, these should also be considered coverage of the subject: Boise Weekly, Chicago Reader. --Michig (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Among the above mentioned links except 1 or 2 exceptions either passed as a reference without in depth coverage or written by registered bloggers on the respective sites. I think fails WP:MUSBIO. Dejakh~talk!•did! 22:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Didn't understand any of that. --Michig (talk) 06:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig. Notability established by sources. I wonder if this article would be more appropriately titled Cecil Frena and reworded accordingly, but that can be left to the usual editorial processes.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to meet WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO #1. Additional coverage includes Exclaim![6], Beats Per Minute Consequence of Sound, The Phoenix, 'The Stranger'. All in all, there seems to be enough material in professional sources to warrant an article. Gong show 05:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability of the artists not established, recording hasn't reached any notable sales levels. All I see in the references above are reviews of recordings, but nothing indicating real notability. PK T(alk) 01:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I reiewed the first few sources cited by Michig, they are written by professional writers and represent significant coverage. J04n(talk page) 23:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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, especially since its one "notable" film, mentioned as a redirect possibility, was deleted. Shii (tock) 06:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rocktopuss Films[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. The one films it has made (as listed on imdb) is 9 minutes long, received only a handful of reviews and have not won any awards. It's next film is not out yet. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 13:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep I have a vested interest in this article, I have donated money through past indiegogo campaigns along with hundreds of others to this company to help it create its films. Its a registered and forward thinking company which only operates on donations just like you. Since wikipedia is an open source of information why should it go against this company if they have so far only got one imdb registered short film when they have another coming? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arghwhy (talk • contribs) 13:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC) — Arghwhy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - Comment Wikipedia is a encyclopedia not a advertising agency for the company. Read WP:COI and WP:ADVERT...William 13:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Coment I don't believe the company is in anyway gaining any advertising advantage through their being a wiki article on them. There is no mention asking for money or advertising productions. Arghwhy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:20, 8 March 2013
      - "comment" this page offers no more or less information than any other production comoany articles. If this article fails then there is significant questions to be asked about all the others who clearly advertise release dates for upcoming productions. 213.205.225.83 (talk)(UTC)
Delete. Studio fails WP:GNG at this time. As per above WP:ADVERT applies. I suggest a speedy close under G11....William 14:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree it fails under WP:GNG when there are citations showing "Significant coverage" and "Reliable" coverage from a major news organisation Maclains.ca regarding the above mentioned short film. As for advertising there isnt any advertising for any of the studio's work. Just pure fact. Arghwhy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

REdirect for the moment to Outsiders (2012 short). A 9-minute film that gets an award may be notable. The company that made it need not inherit that. When they produce something else notable, we might consider reviving the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant coverage. NickCochrane (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 22:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – SJ + 02:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Outsiders (2012 short). The significant coverage simply does not exist, the Maclain piece does not even mention Rocktopuss neither does the other source in the article. Outsiders has coverage the production company does not. J04n(talk page) 13:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reslist comment - Could we have some discussion of the sources provided on the article? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. IMDB is not a reliable source, nor an indication of notability, so that's ref 1 gone. Hull Daily Mail is neither a reliable source, nor anything other than a local one, so that's ref 2 gone. Ref 3 is a university blog - not reliable. Ref 4 is from the same source as ref 2. And I don't see any significant coverage of the company in any of those references either. The only significant coverage I can find is [7], which isn't a reliable source. There's press releases, twitter accounts, Facebook pages and YouTube channels... and nothing else. As such, this company fails WP:GNG. They've also not produced any notable films - I don't believe Outsiders (2012 short) is a notable film, and will AfD it for that reason. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment ref 4 was printed in various different publications other than just the Hull Daily Mail. I also read it in the Yorkshire Post which covers all of yorkshire — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.121.99 (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. Hull is in Yorkshire, so the HDM source being published in the Yorkshire Post makes no difference - it's not a national paper, and if it's come from the HDM originally, it's still an unreliable source. And that's completely ignoring the fact that the word "Rocktopuss" isn't mentioned anywhere in that reference anyway. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just wanted to note that I wasn't really able to see where Outsiders has won any notable awards. I see where someone else mentioned that it won an award, but I can't find anything that verifies what award it was, let alone if the award is notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/userfy. Here's the issue. Even if we count the three newspaper sources as usable as far as showing notability for the company (rather than just saying they're local and don't count), they aren't enough to show a depth of coverage. It gives me the hope that there will eventually be more sources once the second film and/or the TV show releases, but we can't bank on either production getting coverage. Most production companies, even the bigger ones that produce more visible films and shows, tend to fly under the radar. As nice as it'd be for us to be able to include every production company out there, that's not what Wikipedia is for. All production companies have to pass notability guidelines, which ultimately boils down to a depth of coverage in reliable sources. The only reason some other companies might have their pages on here might be because they haven't been nominated for deletion yet in one format or another, so the IP saying WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't really help as a keep argument. I have no problem with anyone userfying this, although I'd recommend that they look for an experienced user to take them under their wing in order to keep any concerns of COI or possible promotional speak out of the article. As far as concerns of promotion go, I don't see where this article is written with a promotional slant. I will, however, warn User:Arghwhy that promotion doesn't have to be "give us money, here's the link" for an article to appear promotional. Most of the time concerns of self-promotion tends to come from words or phrases that might seem innocuous, but don't read as neutral to other editors. It's a pretty easy thing for new editors to fall into without realizing it. Heck, I did this myself for the longest time before another editor got on me for it. Hopefully this explains things a little more, but if Arghwhy has any further questions, feel free to ask on my talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl79, I did also mention the fact that the sources don't even mention Rocktopuss Films for the most part :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 Speedied already. Peridon (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

E-Vision[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - Promotional article about a non-notable company that has no references at all. Dejakh~talk!•did! 14:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, no minimal claim of significance and unambiguous advertising: "E-Vision" is a Digital Cable Television Service Platform Operated and Provided by Etisalat in the United Arab Emirates with the following facilities with a Variety of Basic and Premuim TV Packages. The remaining article text is a list of things you can buy from them. So tagging. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4th Disciple[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references provided to support this claims, need references to prove this person is notable. Jeremy112233 (talk) 04:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable for his production work as well as for his membership of Killarmy. Sources exist. --Michig (talk) 08:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – SJ + 03:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 14:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've relisted this. Saying "sources exist" and just plain old "Keep", are both entirely unhelpful to a deletion discussion. Please try harder. Keeper | 76 14:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skylight Publishing[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nonnotable mom-and-pop (or girl-and-boyfriend) selfpublishing company Staszek Lem (talk) 02:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Numerous News and Books searches provided nothing substantial including one Book search providing business directories and mentions of books that they have published. I found one result with information about Maria Litvin but that wouldn't help this article much let alone notability. In the possibility that they may have notability one day, I have no objection towards userfying. SwisterTwister talk 17:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 14:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a publisher that so far hasn't published a single notable book. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neinstein & Associates LLP[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete -No independent reliable links for verification can be found. Some links do not cite even the topic title while some are self promoted pr releases. Dejakh~talk!•did! 14:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a Canadian law firm, one of many. They got some press for nominations for some trade awards you probably won't have heard of unless you're a Canadian lawyer, and maybe not even then. No showing of the sort of significant impact on history, technology, or culture needed to turn a business into an encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MILL and WP:B2B are only essays. They are not policy. WP:SIGCOV/WP:GNG (as opposed to WP:N) has nothing to do with subjective notions of historical, technological or cultural "impact". It is about the volume of material published in reliable sources. James500 (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see the redirect destination of WP:SIGCOV has been changed, and what I actually meant to link to now is WP:ORGSIG: "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." Notability is about whether something is an encyclopedia subject. It is quite possible for a business to be mentioned in multiple, reliable sources, but unless those sources also suggest a reason why the business should be remembered in an encyclopedia, it shouldn't have an article. A head count is not enough. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think the list given in ORGSIG has a rather narrow focus. If I was reading an article about a business, I think that I would be far more interested in knowing whether it is a good idea to invest money in it, buy goods and services from it, or enter into its employment. If there were independent reliable sources saying that the business was well regarded, or badly regarded, in these respects, it is not obvious to me why that should be incapable of supporting an article. I am not making any comment on whether that is or is not the case here, though. James500 (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - We're not making an investment guide or a business directory here; we're making an encyclopedia. The only subjects in it should be subjects that make the grade for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Notability isn't temporary; what we need here is something to indicate that this law firm will be remembered 500 years from now: because, by definition, if it's notable, it will be. I don't see that here. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 13:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - That is the exact opposite of what NOT TEMP says. NOT TEMP says that coverage in publications does not need to continue indefinately. We are not writing an encyclopedia solely or even primarily for people who will be alive in 500 years time. We are primarily writing an encyclopedia for people who are alive now. James500 (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - We are not writing a "guide" only in the sense that we do not give instructions or advice. We can however give the sort of information that people would be likely to have regard to when making decisions. James500 (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, fails WP:CORP for lack of significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources, either in the article or in a search of Google News Archive. In fact the only significant item I found was this article in Law Times about the senior partner getting his license suspended. (For some reason, the author of the article chose not to include that in the article.) --MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

60 Second Assassin (emcee)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

References are need to prove this person is notable. Jeremy112233 (talk) 04:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge to Sunz of Man. Member of a notable group who has released solo material. Should definitely be covered somewhere. --Michig (talk) 08:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – SJ + 03:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 14:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Popehat (blog)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability requirements not met. Sources are not up to WP:RS standards. Two refs to the site itself, one to another blog, one to a Reddit comment, one to an attorney's self-published website. This leaves a single mention in an ABA Journal blog post as the most reliable source. This blog has simply not achieved sufficient notability for a stand-alone article yet. Yworo (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If anyone even has a chance of notability here, it would be the author, since most the sources seem to relate more to him than his blog. The blog itself is clearly not covered to any significant degree. Ducknish (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as notable as any of the other law blogs listed in Wikipedia.216.15.112.245 (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of secondary sources, including for example ABA Journal, and Wisconsin Law Journal, and Minneapolis Star Tribune as well as books including Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties, and Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate. — Cirt (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. re the assertion above that one of the footnotes is "one reddit comment": No,it's not a Reddit comment, it's a Reddit "ask me anything" interview with 500+ questions and responses. TJIC (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources as mentioned by Cirt above. —Theopolisme (talk) 04:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. J04n(talk page) 23:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Aberdeen[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in Aberdeen, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it has only two sources. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 13:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 14:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and difficult to maintain. The Aberdeen article has section on transport which nicely summarise the bus position in the city. If there's loads of historical data to add then an article on Buses in Aberdeen would be appropriate as a prose article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 00:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. J04n(talk page) 23:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Scotland[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in Scotland, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it has only one sources. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 13:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 14:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and impossible to maintain. This would be my candidate for least suitable article on Wikipedia - it's far too wide in scope and tries to include, what, every single bus route in such a wide area, including such remote rural areas? As a maintenance issue it's simply impossible to deal with reliably. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 00:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. J04n(talk page) 23:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in West Yorkshire[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in West Yorkshire, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it has only two sources. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 13:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 14:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have always thought the amount of effort, even for hardened bus geeks, to maintain this kind of information on here runs the risk of accumulating a lot of potentially out of date material. For example, in UK Geography articles, a simple reference that buses run through a place should be sufficient. The cogent point that this is not a travel guide, suggests this sort of stuff would be better off in WikiVoyage.Rimmer1993 (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to tell you that it's out of WikiVoyage's scope; they wouldn't accept it. Rcsprinter (whisper) @ 16:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They already have one bus travel article listing routes, most city/region articles contain lists of key routes some if not all of this information can be merged if cleaned up first. As I've said before their scope is still limited because it's directly taken from wiktravel's scope but there are discussions taking place on WV about widening that scope as part of the foundation Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTTRAVEL puts it best, and there's no other purpose to the article than that. Ducknish (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
question - I just read NOTTRAVEL. Which of its words implie that schedule travel services shouldn't e included in WP? [non-rhetorical question] almost-instinct 22:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep People keep saying WP is not a travel guide - but travel guides are things which say "go to this hotel, eat here, entertain yourself here". These pages are lists of factual information, no different from the repertoire of Opera North in the 1950s or lists of episodes of Family Guy almost-instinct 22:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the key differences is that bus routes change. New ones appear and old ones disappear. They also lack reliable third party sources, partially because of the non-premanaent nature of bus routes whereas Family Guy episodes can be sourced very reliably from non-directory sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete as non-notable and difficult or impossible to maintain reliably using third party sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 00:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. It is unfortunate that so many of these lists are on at the same time but they are no more notable than a list of hotels or a list of convenience stores.
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. J04n(talk page) 23:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in West Sussex[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in West Sussex given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it has no sources. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 13:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 14:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTTRAVEL puts it best, and there's no other purpose to the article than that. Ducknish (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and just about impossible to maintain reliably using third party sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 00:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. J04n(talk page) 23:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Warwickshire[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in Warwickshire, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it has no sources. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 13:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 14:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTTRAVEL puts it best, and there's no other purpose to the article than that. Ducknish (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and difficult or impossible to maintain reliably using third party sources. The section on transport in the Warwickshire article could use expanding with a bit on buses it anyone's interested in writing prose about buses. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 00:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. J04n(talk page) 00:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in South Yorkshire[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in South Yorkshire, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it has only one source. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 13:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTTRAVEL puts it best, and there's no other purpose to the article than that. Ducknish (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and difficult to maintain using reliable third party sources. The article we have at South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive is a good place to consider redirecting to - and might be worthy of a touch of expansion. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 00:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. J04n(talk page) 00:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Staffordshire[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in Staffordshire, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it has no sources. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 13:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 14:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and impossible to maintain reliably using third party sources. The transport section of the Staffordshire article might use a sentence or three about buses, whilst the article Rail transport in Staffordshire might use a sister article about buses. That would be a much better and encyclopaedic article Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 00:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. In this case, I note an outdated tag, which strengthens my view. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. J04n(talk page) 00:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Nottinghamshire[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in Nottinghamshire, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it has no sources. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 13:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 14:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is just impossible to maintain reliably. We need third party sources to be able to manage something like this - that's easy for railway lines or airports and very, very difficult for buses - for this many routes in just one county it's almost certainly impossible. Also non-notable of course. The article on Nottinghamshire has a sentence about buses. It might use another - unless someone's actually interested enough to write a prose article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 00:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. If anyone want to transwiki this I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 11:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Merseyside[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in Merseyside, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it only has one source. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 13:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 14:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and impossible to maintain using reliable third party sources. A prose article would be lovely though if someone were interested enough in buses to write it. It could have an external link to the timetables so people could look the routes up at a reliable source of up to date information Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 00:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. It is unfortunate that so many of these lists are on at the same time but they are no more notable than a list of hotels or a list of convenience stores.--Charles (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. If anyone want to transwiki this I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 11:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in East Sussex[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in East Sussex, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it only has one source. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 13:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 14:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and difficult if not impossible to maintain using reliable third party sources. The external links are useful but these would be better places in an article about Buses in East Sussex. The transport section on East Sussex contains just one sentence on buses though, so perhaps an enthusiast could double that? Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 00:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. It is unfortunate that so many of these lists are on at the same time but they are no more notable than a list of hotels or a list of convenience stores.--Charles (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. If anyone want to transwiki this I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 11:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Hertfordshire[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in Hertfordshire, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it only has one source. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 13:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 14:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and impossible to maintain using third party sources. The single "reference" on this page is an external link to a directory of timetables. This is also linked to from the Intalink page where it's much more useful. The article on Hertforshire has a transport section which also mentions Intalink - the buses aspect of that article needs expanding though should anyone be interested even remotely in writing prose about buses. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 00:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikivoyage This is another intricate listing of bus route info that should be put into Wikivoyage. Bill Pollard (talk) 11:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. It is unfortunate that so many of these lists are on at the same time but they are no more notable than a list of hotels or a list of convenience stores.
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. If anyone want to transwiki this I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 11:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Lancashire[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in Lancashire, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it only has one source. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 13:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 14:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable and impossible to maintain reliably using third party sources (or, for that matter, primary sources). The fact that we seem to have duplication of lists in Lancashire is by the by but an indication that article quality seems to be irrelevant in some people's minds. The Lancashire article already has a section on Buses - that could use a touch (but only a short paragraph tops) expansion based perhaps on the (hideously over linked) lead from this article. Of course, if someone were interested enough in buses to write a prose article on Buses in Lancashire then the lead to this would provide a starting point and, in that case, a redirect would be in order. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 00:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. If anyone want to transwiki this I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 11:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Devon[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in Devon, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it has no sources. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 13:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 14:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and difficult or impossible to maintain. The fact that the article is pretty terrible in itself is irrelevant of course. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:OSE is not a valid argument for AfD. Beagel (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 00:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. If anyone want to transwiki this I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 11:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Derbyshire[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in Berkshire, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it only has two sources. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 13:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear that you proofread, of course it's not gonna be useful to people in Berkshire, is it? Unless of course, they want to go to Derbyshire. Rcsprinter (lecture) @ 15:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 14:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All the county bus route lists should be kept, even if you delete ones for a smaller scale. It is part of the set and you would be destroying hundreds of hours of my time. Sick of the argument - notable, in scope, and sourced! Rcsprinter (lecture) @ 15:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThere's no argument for keeping county lists over smaller town/village ones. Only sourced to primary and only likely to be sourced to such sources so fails notability policy, Wikipedia is not a travel guide, and Wikipedia is not a directory put it out of scope. Complaining that it would be "destroying hundreds of hours of [your] time" isn't really an argument for keeping, especially when you were advised years ago that these were out of scope and not notable and you continued to create them anyway. If you wish to try Transwiking to the UK bus Wiki on Wikia or wikivoyage, I'd support that move. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and difficult, if not impossible, to reliably maintain using third party sources. The external link provides the key information that any user would want to know - the lead and this link might form the basis for a prose article about Buses in Derbyshire if anyone wanted to write an interesting prose article which could include all sorts of interesting history and other useful stuff about buses. The list by itself really isn't that useful and lacks proper sourcing. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 00:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. It is unfortunate that so many of these lists are on at the same time but they are no more notable than a list of hotels or a list of convenience stores.--Charles (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. J04n(talk page) 11:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Cumbria[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in Cumbria, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it only has one source. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 13:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 14:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable and difficult to maintain reliably using third party sources. The Cumbria article already contains a section on buses with a decent paragraph in it. This could perhaps use a touch of expansion or this could form the basis of the usual suggestion of a prose article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 00:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Rename.. This discussion garnered more interest than similar discussions. Will rename to Bus transport in Cheshire and cut the schedule out. Although there was support for this name change it was not overwhelming, so if folks believe the subject is still not notable a second AfD would not be inappropriate. J04n(talk page) 12:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Cheshire[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus Cheshire, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it only has four sources. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 13:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 14:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Buses in Cheshire (or Bus transport in Cheshire if preferred. This article's starter for 10 could be the lead section of this list, which is useful and provides a good summary, and the external links section which is also useful if you're looking for a bus route in Cheshire. The article on Cheshire could use it's transport section having a bit of a rewrite whilst we're at it, with a paragraph added to deal with buses. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 00:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm neutral on whether bus route lists should be retained; I see arguments both ways. As a member of the Cheshire WikiProject, I'm not aware that there is an article on bus transport in Cheshire and the lead could be adapted to form the start of such an article; so, if not kept, could I put in a plea for a move to Bus transport in Cheshire? As a side note, it would have been helpful to have notified the Cheshire project of this obviously related deletion debate. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikiproject Cheshire has been notified. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From past experience, attempts to convert these articles into prose "Bus Transport in x" articles usually fails often leading to the article being left in exactly the same state that would have had consensus to delete had the option of rewriting not come up. I would suggest that if there is interest in creating such an article that it should be written from scratch (and could be now) - Though I would advise against copying the lead from here and instead write the an article based on the sources and write a new lead as a summary of that article. (The Golden Age of Buses by Klapper seems to cover Cheshire, as does Warrington Trams and Buses:A History of Municipal Transport in Warrington by Robinson, other local history books will fill in the remainder) Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not owning either of these sources, nor any others with significant discussion of bus services, I'm a bit stuck, unfortunately, as I'm loathe to copy the current text given the likelihood of deletion rendering the history inaccessible. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Lead text isn't really above the threshold of originality and rewording it would remove the risk that it was entirely. But as I say better to write a new article rather than copy this lead. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regretfully but this documents company histories and the absurd fragmentation of once publically owned bus network. As bus transport and routes govern the penetration of migrant workers, and the current governments xenophobic attack on Eastern European Workers, based partially on paranoia in the failing chancellor of the exchequer George Osborne Cheshire seat, it is a significant list. Regretfully, as the list is overlong and could be better formatted- but Wikipedia is not a travel guide does not apply, it gives frequencies but not times of buses. One does have to read the section not just the section heading. It is worrying that working class transport is singled out for deletion while lists of train routes and motorways favoured by the middle classes are promoted. A possible compromise is to rename it Bus transport in Cheshire-- Clem Rutter (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the article, because it does no such thing? There are no company histories and it doesn't mention the fragmentation of the network it simply lists the current companies and lists their routes. NotTravel is clear that lists of hotels, cafe, restaurants. etc are not acceptable unless the individual items are notable - exactly the same as lists of bus routes and there is no mention in that policy of times having to be mentioned simply the listing of the non-notable item is enough. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A history of the fragmentation of the once public bus network in prose would be without doubt notable however this article does not include any history at all so your reason for keeping it does not make a lot of sense. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 20:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Keep (e/c) I disagree that the 51 nominations for deletion of the various lists of bus routes should be considered separately. They need to be considered together, as the same objections and points will crop up for all of them. Alternatively, if they do not, then the articles that are deemed worthy of keeping need to be identified in order to tell other editors what to do to bring the rest of the articles up to some standard that those feel they fail (and others pass) should have. I recommend closing all the AfDs here and inviting a much more widespread discussion in a suitable place about what a good article that includes the information should be like (for example, a transport-related forum, with notifications, that did not happen here until recently, that such a debate is being held on all projects that have an interest in this.) I also note that if these articles are deleted, then various templates also need to be proposed for deletion because they will then be unused or otherwise superfluous. Finally, as Clem Rutter has noted, similar lists of motorways, train routes, etc need also to be deleted if one is to be consistent according to the criteria those in favour of deletion have advanced here. However, I do not see them as having been! Eating away at articles dealing with one small part of the transport of the UK should not be allowed to proceed unless first there is an explicit and coherent view about transport articles as a whole. DDStretch (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was an RfC at the village pump 2 years ago the outcome of which was that there was no broad consensus either to keep or to delete but that every article should be considered on its own merits - hence the need for 51 separate AfD's. Generally I've striven to do that when commenting though the majority fail policy in an identical hence like here I've used a copy and paste response that addresses all those failings. The only one article that is liable to pass muster here is London which hasn't been nominated, but both secondary and primary sources exist for its content, and it exists as an index of individually notable routes that doesn't happen elsewhere in the country (The Souther Vectis one is a marginal one for the same reasons with a current move towards merging into the bus company article). Lists of Motorways and Rail Lines generally pass muster for the same reason They index individually notable lines/roads which are supported by a number of reliable secondary sources - there may be some which fall short but they need to be identified separately and nominated separately. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We already have perfectly good articles on the subject of buses - for example Buses in Bristol or Buses in Portsmouth. These are prose articles that detail the history of buses (and their significant routes where appropriate) in localities. If you want a much more basic article then even Buses in Lowestoft has some things going for it. Lists of bus routes, however, almost always fail to deal with notability per the GNG - they have significant differences from the majority of roads or railway lines and, as a result, tend to lack the required third party sourcing. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N, WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. It is unfortunate that so many of these lists are on at the same time but they are no more notable than a list of hotels or a list of convenience stores.--Charles (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 merge to Týr (band). Black Kite (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heljareyga (album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Heljareyga (album) (2nd nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NALBUM. cannot see it meeting any of its criteria. LibStar (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 05:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:ALBUM or even WP:GNG DavidTTTaylor (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this isn't just an album, this is also a band, Heljareyga redirects to the album. Without being able to search Danish and Norwegian newspapers difficult to assess what is there beyond easy hits like this. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — The band's name redirects to the album. Notability is not inherited, and since the band is ostensibly not notable, it is highly likely that this album is not notable either. Also, there is no assertion of significance whatsoever, and the coverage it has received appears to be very limited. Kurtis ^(talk) 11:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a not yet created subsection of Týr (band) labeled 'Side projects'. J04n(talk page) 13:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: The nomination normally should not have been relisted for the third time, however, I am doing it to see whether there is consensus for merge (which seems to accomodate all suggestions so far) and whether a redirect would be appropriate. Please address in particular these questions.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Týr (band) to retain the information (subject does not meet the relevant guideline for a standalone article). Miniapolis 14:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. J04n(talk page) 12:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Wiltshire[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in Wiltshire, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it only one source. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 12:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 14:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and difficult or impossible to maintain reliably using third party sources. This is incomplete and, frankly, is never likely to be reliably maintained appropriately. The operator or county council web sites are a much more reliable source of information for this sort of stuff. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 00:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 merge to FoolishPeople. Biographies with many citations fall into two categories; the obviously notable, and the probably-not-notable-but-citing-everything-to-get-over-the-bar type. This clearly falls into the second category. This is an odd AfD because we have few actual !votes but a lot of discussion. The analysis by Singularity42 is notable, however, and I believe shows that the subject has practically no individual notability. It would have been easy to close this AfD as "no consensus", but I suspect we would have just ended up with another AfD at some point. By closing as Merge, we can keep any useful information, and the edit history, so that the article can be re-created if the subject clearly passes the BIO notability bar in the future. Black Kite (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Harrigan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:BIO. The company he founded, FoolishPeople is arguably notable. But notability is not inherited. The reviews of the works cited don't go out of their way to note the subject in any detail. Singularity42 (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 00:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 00:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK John Harrigan is notable because people know of his work as FoolishPeople and the fact he has written and directed all of FoolishPeople productions to date. It might be hard for someone outside the UK to judge notability of the subject. Last year he worked with Conway Hall the oldest freethought society in the world. This is cited in the article. I've recognised the article was nominated for deletion only 12 minutes after moving it to the main namespace. I question this to be enough time to judge notability for the subject and all cited articles to be reviewed in this short time. The majority of John Harrigan's work is also listed on Doollee, The Playwright Database. I've cited this on the article now. I think he fullfills most of Wikipedia's artist /creative professionals criteria for inclusion. My last edit from today is about the unique performance practice he developed over many years called Theatre of Manifestation. Mirjam Behne (talk) 08:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone has any issues with the timing of this nomination and WP:BEFORE, I was familiar with the subject from the previous attempts to create this article. Singularity42 (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not to complain but for understanding your decision. I'm quite new to Wikipedia but I really think John Harrigan and also his company FoolishPeople is worth of being in this free encyclopedia. He and his work has made widely recognised contribution and he is outstanding in his field. I put a lot of hard work into the research of this subject and its work. I've been to many of John Harrigan's live events and also own all of his published scripts mentioned. I did not know that there has been others before trying to create an article under this namespace and I was just wondering why the article had been nominated immediatly. The person/subject is known for originating significant new concepts, theories and techniques. He has won significant critical attention and has been a substantial part of significant exhibitions. The subject worked with major art institutions and others, such as the Institute of Contemporary Arts and The Conway Hall Ethical Society. The subject also meets all the basic notability criteria. I've been carefully researching secondary sources which are reliable and independent. The primary sources are only mentioned as external links. I made additional edits that verify the notability of the subject. If this is still not enough to verify the notability of the subject, could you please tell me why the subject is not meeting the creative professional creteria? Thank you in advance. Kind regards. Mirjam Behne (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Keep I've made more additional edits to verify the subject by citing the occupations of the subject. It would be very kind if someone again could review the article for John Harrigan. I will also continue improving the article. Help and suggestions are welcome. Thank you. Mirjam Behne (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even with the recent additions, I think my original concern is still correct - that it is FoolishPeople that is notable, that it's creator, John Harrigan. One of the recent additions was that he receved an award called the "Magi of Trygonia". However, Google searches seem to indicate this was an award created by a small group specifically to be handed out to the subject in 2006, and then never mentioned again, except for bios released by the subject or his company. I really don't think it is the type of award that we usually mean to say someone meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Singularity42 (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment FoolishPeople was the name John Harrigan used to create work under. Quote: “FoolishPeople was founded in 1991 as the name under which John Harrigan developed and created live art and theatre” - Doollee Playwrights Database FoolishPeople is a collective that is notable and John Harrigan as a person and subject of the article as well is notable due to the fact his work has been presented at one of the most important and major art and cultural institutions in the UK, the Institute of Contemporary Arts, where he was also invited to speak about the themes and content of Dead Language. Under Wikipedia's own guidelines for artists he meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia for this fact. The award might not meet the notability guidelines but he has been awarded with it so it's worth to be mentioned anyway. Also Wikipedia states the fact that being famous or popular already is secondary for inclusion into the encyclopedia. John Harrigan is notable for many other reasons and other additions has been made to the article as well. He has written and directed every single FoolishPeople project and he is also notable for his development of a unique form of theatre practice, Theatre of Manifestation. FoolishPeople would not exist without his continued authorship of scripts and directorial work. Mirjam Behne (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out duplicate !vote. Singularity42 (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand with other work unrelated to FoolishPeople. Much of his individual work is published under his name alone, not under FP. And his recent work on Citizen Y is unrelated. – SJ + 02:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The Wired web article is the only one cited in the article that's really coverage in a reliable source, and that doesn't say much about Harrigan. I didn't find much else. --Michig (talk) 10:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment - Instead of juts asserting or denying that reliable sources exist, it would probably be more productive to list some of the sources here and discuss their merits, as that is ultimately what will determine the result of the AfD. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sources. Good point, ItsZippy. Here's my thoughts.

Sources for references 8, 12, 13, 17, 19, 20, 24, and 26 makes no mention at all of Harrigan, and does not support Harrigan's notability.
Sources for references 1, 6, 7, 11, 22, 25, 27, and 30 mentions Harrigan, but in his capacity as a director for FoolishPeople while talking about a FoolishPeople production, or in a very minor passing (note that some of these references use identical sources).
The source for references 2 and 10 is a blog entry created by the subject himself.
The source for reference 9 makes mention of the "award" I criticized earlier as not supporting notability.
The source for reference 5 is a database entry with no rules about who is included.
The source for reference 28 is the forward from Harrigan's published script, and not independent.
The sources for reference 31 and 32 are self-published interviews (by "self-published", I mean blogs, etc.).
The source for reference 18, 23 is the same podcast interview with Harrigan, but I'm not sure if it is a source that is considered reliable for the purpose of notability.
I don't know what the source is for reference 3.
The source for reference 14 is a broken link.

That leaves the source for references 4, 21, and 33 which is the same interview with Harrigan, and the sources for references 15, 16, 29 which are reviews of FoolishPeople productions that note Harrigan in the credits. I do not believe those last few are enough to support notability. Singularity42 (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. J04n(talk page) 12:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Newport[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from Newport, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it only has one source. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 12:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 13:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and difficult to maintain using reliable third party sources. The Newport article already has a wee section on buses. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 00:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. J04n(talk page) 12:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes on the Isle of Wight[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from Isle of Wight, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it has no sources. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 12:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 14:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the Southern Vectis article does the job here. We don't need another list which will only get out of date and is difficult to source reliably. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 00:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. J04n(talk page) 12:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Wrexham county borough[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in Wrexham, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it only has one source. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 12:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 14:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. The transport section of the Wrexham article does the job we need to do on buses in the area without being held a hostage to fortune by a list that's difficult to maintain and seemingly impossible to source reliably using third party sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 00:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. J04n(talk page) 12:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Berkshire[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from Berkshire, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it only has one source. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 12:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 13:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and apparently impossible to get up to date. The Reading Transport article has a fair selection of routes - seemingly (at a glance only) at least as many as are here so I would question whether this article will ever be able to be maintained reliably using third party sources. As usual a prose article is an option worth considering. In this case I'm fairly certain trans-wikification would be a bad idea due to the incomplete nature of the list. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 00:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. If anyone want to transwiki this or any similar recently deleted page I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 12:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Cardiff[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from Cardiff, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it only has one source. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 12:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 13:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable with content largely duplicated by the really rather good article Bus transport in Cardiff which summarises (and even partly lists) routes in the city. It also provides an external link to reliable and up to date timetable information elsewhere. A redirect to that would be helpful Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 00:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. If anyone want to transwiki this or any similar recently deleted page I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 12:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Southern Vectis bus routes[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article alone is not notable and should be either deleted or merged into the Southern Vectis article. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 12:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Currently happy to support merge into Southern Vectis article - But this article is problematic as it acts as an index page for several limited notability bus route articles which probably fail WP:PRODUCT a nomination with deletion of them would free this index list to be deleted as well all relevant information could be retained in Southern Vectis article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable Merge. Davey2010 Talk 14:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I, seriously, check that you realise which article you've put this comment on please. It's not a "list of bus routes in xxx" one, you know that, yes? Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge partly, with a summary of key routes and so on rather than simply taking the entire content and dropping it somewhere else. Otherwise delete. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no indication that this subject meets WP:GNG. It also fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is no need for these type of lists within bus company articles as the information can be found on the company's own website where it is a lot more likely to be accurate.--Charles (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 00:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. If anyone want to transwiki this or any similar recently deleted page I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 12:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Wakefield[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from Wakefield, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it only has two sources. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 12:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move info to Wikitravel - I agree this does not belong in Wikipedia. The information in this article would be better to be in Wikitravel. I commend the author of this, as this is a very comprehensive list. If the end result of this AfD discussion is to delete, I will make sure myself the info gets moved. Bill Pollard (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bill, do you know that nearly all the editors from wikitravel forked their information off into the [www.wikivoyage.org wikivoyage] project which is part of wikimedia now? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 14:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and difficult or impossible to maintain reliably using third party sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 01:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. If anyone want to transwiki this or any similar recently deleted page I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 12:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in West Lancashire[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from West Lancashire, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it only has two sources. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 12:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 14:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and difficult or impossible to maintain reliably using third party sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 01:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. If anyone want to transwiki this or any similar recently deleted page I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 12:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in South Ribble[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from South Ribble, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it only has two sources. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 12:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 14:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and difficult to maintain using reliable third party sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 01:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. If anyone want to transwiki this or any similar recently deleted page I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 12:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Rossendale[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from Rossendale, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it only has two sources. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 12:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 14:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and difficult to maintain using reliable third party sources. Unlike railway lines or airports, bus routes change and lack sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 01:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. If anyone want to transwiki this or any similar recently deleted page I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 12:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Preston[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from Preston, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it only has two sources. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 12:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 14:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and difficult to maintain using reliable third party sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 01:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. If anyone want to transwiki this or any similar recently deleted page I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 12:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Pendle[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from Pendle, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it only has two sources. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 12:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 14:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and difficult to maintain using reliable third party sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 01:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. If anyone want to transwiki this or any similar recently deleted page I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 12:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Wigan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from Wigan, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it only has two sources. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 12:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 14:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and difficult or impossible to maintain reliably using third party sources. The Wigan article has a nice little section on transport that's not so bad and is a much more suitable place for a summary of bus stuff. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 01:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. If anyone want to transwiki this or any similar recently deleted page I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 12:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Tameside[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from Tameside, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it only has two sources. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 12:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 14:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and difficult or impossible to maintain reliably using third party sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 01:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. If anyone want to transwiki this or any similar recently deleted page I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 12:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Stockport[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from Stockport, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it only has two sources. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 12:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 14:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and difficult or impossible to maintain reliably using third party sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 01:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. If anyone want to transwiki this or any similar recently deleted page I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 12:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Salford[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from Salford, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it only has two sources. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 11:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 14:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable and difficult to maintain reliably using those oh so inconvenient third party sources. The article on Salford contains a paragraph in buses which works very nicely. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 01:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. If anyone want to transwiki this or any similar recently deleted page I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 12:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Rochdale[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from Rochdale, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it only has two sources. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 11:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 14:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and difficult to maintain using reliable third party sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 01:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. If anyone want to transwiki this or any similar recently deleted page I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 12:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Oldham[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from Oldham, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it only has two sources. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 11:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 13:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and difficult to maintain using reliable third party sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 01:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. If anyone want to transwiki this or any similar recently deleted page I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 12:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Manchester[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from Manchester, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it only has two sources. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 11:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 13:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the possibility of a redirect to Transport in Manchester. Yet again there's no link from this list to the far superior prose article which has a very good section on buses. Let's use that rather than a non-notable and impossible to maintain list. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 01:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. If anyone want to transwiki this or any similar recently deleted page I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 12:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Leeds[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from Leeds, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it only has two sources. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 11:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 13:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the possibility of a redirect to the entirely reasonable Transport in Leeds article. The list itself is non-notable and impossible to maintain reliably using third party sources. The other article has a pretty decent section on buses, although it might use an external link to timetables and so on. Oddly it's not linked at all from this list of bus routes - I imagine someone or other must have known it existed; didn't take very much for me to find it... Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 01:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. If anyone want to transwiki this or any similar recently deleted page I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 12:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Kirklees[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from Kirklees, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it only has two sources. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 11:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 13:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and difficult to maintain using reliable third party sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 01:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. If anyone want to transwiki this or any similar recently deleted page I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 12:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Hyndburn[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from Hyndburn, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it only has two sources. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 11:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 13:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and difficult to maintain and source reliably using third party sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 01:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. If anyone want to transwiki this or any similar recently deleted page I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 12:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Ripley[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in Ripley, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it only has two sources. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 11:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 14:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and difficult to maintain using reliable third party sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 01:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. If anyone want to transwiki this or any similar recently deleted page I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 12:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Matlock[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in Matlock, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it only has two sources. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 11:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 13:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and difficult to maintain using reliable third party sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 01:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. If anyone want to transwiki this or any similar recently deleted page I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 12:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Glossop[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in Glossop, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it only has two sources. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 11:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 14:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and difficult to reliably maintain. The Glossop article has a nice little section on buses already. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 01:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. If anyone want to transwiki this or any similar recently deleted page I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 12:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Ilkeston[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in Ilkeston, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it only has two sources. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 11:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 13:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and difficult to maintain using reliable third party sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 01:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. If anyone want to transwiki this or any similar recently deleted page I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 12:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Heanor[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in Heanor, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it only has two sources. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 11:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 13:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I've addressed the issue of bus routes on the Heanor page just now as it was fairly lousy previously. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 01:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. If anyone want to transwiki this or any similar recently deleted page I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 12:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in the Amber Valley[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in Amber Valley, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it only has one source. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 11:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 13:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and difficult or impossible to maintain reliably using third party sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 01:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. If anyone want to transwiki this or any similar recently deleted page I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 12:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Swadlincote[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in Swadlincote, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it only has two sources. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 11:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 13:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and difficult or impossible to maintain reliably using third party sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 01:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. J04n(talk page) 12:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Derby[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in Derby, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it only has two sources. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 11:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 13:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and difficult or impossible to maintain reliably using third party sources. The article on Derby already has a section on transport which deals with buses in an entirely reasonable way. If there's lots more information to add then a prose article Buses in Derby could be considered a useful use of time. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 01:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. If anyone want to transwiki this or any similar recently deleted page I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 12:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Oxfordshire[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in Oxfordshire, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it only one source. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 11:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 13:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the county bus route lists should be kept, even if you delete ones for a smaller scale. It is part of the set and you would be destroying hundreds of hours of my time. Sick of the argument - notable, in scope, and sourced! Rcsprinter (chat) @ 15:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as impossible to maintain using third part reliable sources and non-notable. The Oxfordshire article needs a section on Transport probably, and the lead here could use some elements of that maybe. Unless an article on Buses in Oxfordshire were to be written as a prose article of course, which would then be an entirely sensible redirect target. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless meticulously kept up to date (which I am not willing to do), or are deliberately intended to describe a "snapshot" of the situation on a specific historic date, such articles are misleadigly unreliable. A quick glance is enough for me to know that the list is well out of date: several services are shown as operated by RH Transport, which ceased trading almost six months ago. It's even longer since the X2 route was transferred to Thames Travel. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's place a date on the page and then you're argument is invalid. Adam Mugliston talk 20:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Experience within the Football wikiproject suggests that dates on articles is very limited in terms of verifying any form of accuracy. Articles tend to be edited, usually to update statistics, without updating dates (and usually by only updating one set of stats on the page when there are often a number of inter-related statistics). I would imagine the same thing would occur here - and, frankly, lists of bus routes which are, on occasions 18 months to 2 years out of date aren't all that useful to the project even when they aren't full of errors. This is the primary benefit of prose articles which don't include tables of stuff - the prose can be written in such a way as to ensure that dates are used sensibly to caveat any time sensitive information. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 01:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. If anyone want to transwiki this or any similar recently deleted page I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 12:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Gloucestershire[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in Gloucestershire, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it only has one source. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 11:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 13:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the county bus route lists should be kept, even if you delete ones for a smaller scale. It is part of the set and you would be destroying hundreds of hours of my time. Sick of the argument - notable, in scope, and sourced! Rcsprinter (Gimme a message) @ 15:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and difficult to maintain using third party sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 01:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. It is unfortunate that so many of these lists are on at the same time but they are no more notable than a list of hotels or a list of convenience stores.--Charles (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. If anyone want to transwiki this or any similar recently deleted page I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 12:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Brighton & Hove[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from Brighton & Hove, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it only one source. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 11:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 13:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is part of the set and you would be destroying hundreds of hours of my time. Sick of the argument - notable, in scope, and sourced! Rcsprinter (constabulary) @ 15:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable and difficult to maintain list/ The primary content, including much of the detail, is duplicated at Transport in Brighton and Hove - a prose article which summarises the content and provides an external link to a source where reliably up to date timetable information can be accessed. As a result this article is largely redundant and it's nature make maintenance an ongoing issue. A redirect to Transport in Brighton and Hove would be a reasonable solution by the way Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 01:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. It is unfortunate that so many of these lists are on at the same time but they are no more notable than a list of hotels or a list of convenience stores.--Charles (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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) Mediran (t • c) 00:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama-Halle[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable venue. Non-reliable references. No suggestion of importance whatsoever. Author has been advised that the notability guidelines in English Wikipedia is very different than German Wikipedia (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep it says in the notability guidlines that notability is not temperary. This venue once had mass coverage in the 1980s when top musical acts performed there. Evangp (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — From my perspective, this venue meets the general notability threshold. A lot of famous rock/metal acts have performed there, including Slayer, R.E.M., Anthrax, The Cult, The Smashing Pumpkins, Motörhead, the Ramones, Manowar, Nazareth, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Marillion, The Cure, Uriah Heep, New Order, Depeche Mode, King Crimson, the Dead Kennedys, etc. That, as well as this Google search, leads me to conclude that there should be plenty of reliable sources that can be used in this article. It's a stub, but I think it can be kept. Kurtis ^(talk) 11:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment "Setlist.fm" is a wiki, it can be edited by anyone - so it is unsuitable as a reference. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The German article has an excellent reference, an article in Der Spiegel entirely about the place, and I also found an article in Die Zeit, plus several mentions of performers appearing there. I've expanded and corrected the article based on both the de.wikipedia article and the references I've added (the place closed in 1988; the nightclub is just using the name; and a popular TV show was broadcast from there until the year it closed) and I believe it now demonstrates notability. There is probably quite a lot more news coverage to be found, including of the emergency response exercise using the condemned buildings that is mentioned in the de.wikipedia article. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yngvadottir, notability now clearly established.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. TY Yngvadottir. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 soft delete. Due to low community involvement in this discussion will treat the nomination as an expired proposed deletion, with the understanding that anyone who contests the deletion may request undeletion for any reason. J04n(talk page) 12:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing toolbar[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has existed practically untouched since August 2005. I really don't think Wikipedia needs an article about an individual toolbar. It may meet WP:N, as lots of online help articles would have been written about it, but I think WP:IINFO starts to apply here. Any relevant information about this toolbar should be placed in the Microsoft Office article, or the article about a specific version of Office (since this toolbar has not been present in the last three releases of Microsoft Office) - however the fact that nothing has been said about this toolbar for 7 years is not encouraging. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This approaches WP:NOTMANUAL in the level of detail it goes into on one ultimately inconsequential feature of a program. I don't think the toolbar itself warrants a separate article, and articles like revision control already mention that word processors and office suites have revision control built in (albeit briefly, so perhaps that could be expanded). — daranz [ t ] 19:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 discussion about possibly renaming or redirecting can certainly continue on the talkpage. J04n(talk page) 13:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Beniquez[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no evidence here whatsoever that he is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Though I welcome evidence I'm wrong? Jeremy112233 (talk) 04:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - there are plentiful Spanish news sources relating to this young man's pursuit in the courts of his alleged biological father the Pentecostal church leader Teófilo Vargas Seín. The article's notability will be evidently be affected by the forthcoming DNA result. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mita Congregation. For now, Beniquez is "notable" for just one circumstance, namely his lawsuit against his alleged biological father. That lawsuit is discussed at Mita Congregation, and any additional content about the lawsuit can be added there. WP:ONEEVENT applies; separate article is not justified. --Orlady (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONEEVENT doesn't mean that we can't have a separate article, it means that the article should focus on the event not the person, which this article does. Diego (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: At this point, there is no consensus, let us discuss further what to do

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 09:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PAGEDECIDE and rename to "Samuel Beniquez adoption lawsuit" or similar. The lawsuit *is* notable and merits an article; merging everything here would be undue weight at Mita Congregation, so it's better to have a separate article about the lawsuit. Diego (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Diego Moya's argument. This lawsuit and the paternity is a central issue affecting the already notable Mita religion. I do not agree that it would be undue weight to merge, but I think it is not a povfork to have it separate either. Additionally, I think it meets notability prima facie for BLPs: there is widespread media coverage of Beniquez in the mainstream press.--Cerejota (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The lawsuit and paternity issue are already covered in the article Mita Congregation, which is the article about the Mita religion. That is also the article where this man's alleged biological father is covered. The only content in this article that is not currently in the Mita Congregation article is promotional content about Mr. Beníquez, including photographs of him and information about his public relations career. That content is not related to the "one event" that is deemed to be notable. Wikipedia does not advertise the careers of otherwise non-notable people who are parties to notable paternity lawsuits. --Orlady (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a different debate than deletion. There are three things here: 1) Paternity lawsuit 2) Biographies involved 3) Article quality. The first two we can discuss here, the other we cannot. A bad quality, promotional BLP can be kept and then edited to fit a more appropriate standard. As I said, I do not oppose merger, but I am not sure Beniquez is only notable for this event, as it seems he was a well known PR professional before these news broke. So the issues need to be treated separately. --Cerejota (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Merge & redirect" or just "redirect" to another article is a valid outcome of a deletion discussion. As I stated in my comment earlier, Beniquez is "notable" for just one circumstance, namely his lawsuit against his alleged biological father. You may consider him a "well known PR professional", but the article has no third-party coverage about his professional work, nor any other aspect of his biography outside of the lawsuit. Furthermore, being a successful public relations agent does not qualify as notable under WP:BIO. --Orlady (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BRODYQUEST[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unremarkable music video. Uncletomwood (talk) 08:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AKA:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Lacking any sort of reliable coverage, this youtube video fails WP:NF. As the film lacks any notability, we might at best consider a redirect to the film's subject, Adrien Brody. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:NF. Gong show 02:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cute, but not encyclopedic. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. WP:CSD#A7 no credible claim of significance or importance. JohnCD (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Environmentology[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does this group really exist? FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can be proven to exist. JIP | Talk 06:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Either non notable or a hoax. Cobalion. Setting Justice everywhere.active 14:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. I can only find it in Wikipedia mirrors. Hoax or WP:MADEUP. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under WP:A7. There's no assertion of any sort of importance to the group. Ducknish (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. L Faraone 02:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of three Michelin starred restaurants in the United Kingdom[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Why the page should be deleted? Because it is a copy of the most essential information from Michelin^TM guides for this this area. Specifically the article has two copies, one in the body and once again at the bottom, of a lists of restaurants which are been compiled from from the Michelin Guides to Great Britain & Ireland. These lists are the essence of these guides and so this constitute a Blatant Copyright Violation. I therefore ask that the page be deleted ASAP.

P.S. I have also nominated for deletion the related template at Template:Michelin stars in the UK
P.S.S adding related category Category:Michelin Guide starred restaurants in the United Kingdom since it also is a CPVIO!

and List of Michelin starred restaurants in Ireland — Preceding unsigned comment added by CPVIO (talk • contribs) 09:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CPVIO (talk) 05:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Guardian printed the full 2012 list, down to one-star establishments[8], and MSN the three-star restaurants for 2013[9]. The restaurants so honored would undoubtedly publicize their accomplishment, so the info must be available through other sources. Is this really a copyright violation? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

Are you serious ? What restaurant would advertise a list of all its competitors ?
I assume (in good faith) that all other sources are either licensed by or advertising by Michelin. Wikipedia does not license content or allow advertising so until the Guides are put into the public domain this material is a CPVIO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CPVIO (talk • contribs) 14:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. They wouldn't publish their competitors scores. They'd do it individually. So they have to be sourced individually. Which gets around the Sweat of the Brow argument you've used below! Miyagawa (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: It isn't a copyright violation unless everything on Wikipedia is a copyright violation. The complete history of the Michelin stars in the UK are listed on the Michelin website England here. The actual guide doesn't just show the stars which are reported in the media when they occur as shown by the independent referencing, but shows an actual review (not included in this article, nor intended to be) and a range of icons describing the restaurant (not in this article nor intended to be). Furthermore, there has been no physical copy of the Michelin Guide which shows the all time three-star list. This list effectively says that the restaurant is at a level of achievement which is in the public domain, but does not show the actual reason for it or the detail which is contained in the individual guides. Miyagawa (talk) 09:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further point - the live information can also be searched for through the via Michelin website for free. Miyagawa (talk) 09:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

The Ranking like the review etc are part of the guides and a protected by copyright.
A compilation is a derivative work of their IP and is still covered by the same laws of copyright.
This "Copy & Paste" argument is against WP:CPVIO policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CPVIO (talk • contribs) 14:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as a brand new user that you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. Unless of course you're a well known user and created a new account under a different name because for some reason you don't want your activities here linked to your main account. Sorry, I'm naturally suspicious when someone creates a user account and then on the same day they known how to insert a bullet point let alone request the deletion of an article. Based on the assumptions you make, every single list article on the entire English Wikipedia which is sourced is therefore a copyright problem. Furthermore any-time anyone has given a review and it has been quoted on Wikipedia would also be a copyright violation. And every time a listing of Michelin Guide score is mentioned by anyone online is also a copyright violation. They put out press releases listing these for re-use by print media. Plus, your Sweat of the Brow argument holds no water. I've compiled information here that isn't collected on the historical Michelin Guide listing. I'm sorry, but it is really hard to abide by WP:DONTBITE when it seems like WP:NEEDSMOARDRAMA is being breached. Miyagawa (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've scored out some unfair comments I added previously now a more level head is prevalent. Miyagawa (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Facts are not copyrightable. Diego (talk) 11:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Compilation are copyrighted when they contain added value per Sweat of the brow. A list of rankings produced at great expense, unlike a list of the restaurants' phone numbers constitutes a compilation and is the product of the publisher's work and thus their intellectual property and protected by Copyright.

*Speedy Keep: No copyright vio. under American law, and no valid reason for deletion proposed:

- Wikipedia's servers are physically located in the United States, so US IP (intellectual property) law applies to Wikipedia's content. The US has explicitly rejected Sweat_of_the_brow#US_copyright_law and the database right: "Uncreative collections of facts are outside of Congressional authority under the Copyright Clause (Article I, § 8, cl. 8) of the United States Constitution." (For that matter, if WP were bound to follow the law of other countries, effectively it would have to apply the most restrictive national IP laws which exist anywhere in the world, including that of Mexico, where the copyright term on published works is the life of the author + 99 years!!)
- The article under review lists only eight restaurants. It's very likely that even under UK/EU law, this would be seen as a De minimis copying - i.e. fair use. It's one thing to replicate a very large database such as a telephone directory; it's quite another to repeat a small collection of facts. --Mike Agricola (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: In light of subsequent comments, especially that of Moonriddengirl, I'm not so sure that this is a clear cut situation anymore. --Mike Agricola (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This raises very fundamental issues which go to the heart of Wikipedia - I do not think that this can be decided on !votes, and at the very least I would want to see evidence that the copyright holder of the Michelin Guides had sought to restrict use of the material in this way (as pointed out, there is evidence to the contrary) and that there was expert legal advice that it is in breach of copyright for the purposes of the relevant law. Sweat of the brow has been referred to above - my reading of the summary there of the match listing judgement of the European Court is that it went against copyright enforcement in instances such as this in the EU. --AJHingston (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wikipedia:Copyright in lists and past precedent such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Core Collection albums in The Penguin Guide to Jazz. AllyD (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC) See also the previous deletion decision at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_March_22#List_of_Michelin_two_starred_restaurants AllyD (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the same issue. The Penguin one seems to have been a copy violation from a single work. I didn't see the two star article before it was deleted so I can't comment on that. The restaurants in this article were not three star restaurants in the same version of the guide. They have never been published together as a single list, apart from on the Michelin website which shows different information to that which is presented here. Miyagawa (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wait a goddamn second~~ What is this: [[10]]. It seems that CPVIO is attempted to remove all Michelin Star related information from Wikipedia. Would he/she care to comment why this was added their user page and then remove it? This is all very unusual. Miyagawa (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saw red for a second then and didn't notice that CPVIO had moved the list into his sandbox here User:CPVIO/sandbox. It still seems like an unusual campaign for a new editor to embark upon on his first day of Wikipedia editing. Who are you really? Miyagawa (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Seems like a genuine original work derived from this Michelin website The Banner talk 19:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genuine derivatives are covered by the original copyright. CPVIO (talk) 11:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - regarding the coprightablility of such a list, in what way are the following different? List of Nobel laureates, Michigan Women's Hall of Fame#Hall of Fame honorees, List of covers of Time magazine (and all sub-lists) Chris857 (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment Reference by AllyD to the precedents and the advice on which it was based is very helpful, but this is not a simple situation. The rating in the Michelin Guide is the de facto standard by which restaurants are judged, certainly in Britain. The star awards each year are trumpeted by the publishers in press announcements for which they seek as much attention as possible. There are very good commercial reasons why they should. So we are in the paradoxical position of discussing removal of material which is undoubtedly notable on the grounds of protecting a copyright owner who wants the information published. If there is doubt of that I suggest first asking the publisher whether they object. It is comparable to the situation with film awards - the Motion Picture Academy holds copyright on the Academy Awards, but it would be very odd if that meant that WP did not list nomination and award lists. --AJHingston (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without doubt, I think it should be possible to reference every single year for every single restaurant. But you have to go through several newspapers and magazines and create a rather deadly long list of references... The Banner talk 22:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing wont do any good since the list itself is protected IP. Referencing is allowed under fair use but recreating the list from 1000 different sources is the same trespass as simply copying it. CPVIO (talk) 11:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because I don't like the idea of a newcomer having the potential to destroy a major share of my work on Wikipedia, I have contacted Michelin directly to get an answer from them. The Banner talk 23:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I understand Wikipedia:Copyright in lists, the key factor is whether subjective critical judgment went into compiling the list, or not. Certainly critical judgment went into the assignment of stars in the Michelin Guide series. But the ranking itself, not the creation of a list, is the critical judgment being made. Once an issue in the series of Michelin Guides is printed, the information in it is of record, and it is a trivial task not requiring critical judgment to compile the list of restaurants awarded any number of stars. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was asked to share my thoughts here on the basis of my experience in copyright work. Clearly, the selection is subjective. The star rating of a restaurant is not an innate value on which everyone would agree, but something that requires human opinion. It is a fact that Michelin has bestowed these stars, certainly, but it's also a fact that Rolling Stone named 500 greatest songs of all time, too, and we still can't list them beyond the allowances of fair use. Excerpting them is tricky, because they are not all of equal value - as our attorney pointed out, the top 5 of a list is what people are most interested in. That seems applicable here as well. If somebody put a gun to my head (which, rather not) and said, "Maggie, you have to make this choice," I'd have to fall on the side of conservative here. This seems like a derivative excerpt of creative content. It is not being used transformatively - that is, we aren't offering a critique of their selection or anything that adds to the public discourse. The sole reason for publication that I can see is to supersede the use of the original work - so people who want to know which restaurants in the area Michelin thinks are best can easily find them here without having to go there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In light of your comment, I canceled my earlier "speedy keep". I still think the situation *probably* could be regarded as fair use because of the small size of the list (eight entries), but my experience with these issues is admittedly very limited. Per Copyright in lists and your comment, I can agree that it's preferable to act conservatively on the important matter of respecting a publisher's copyright. A few posts above, The Banner made a statement about contacting "Michelin directly to get an answer from them". If Michelin gives permission in the next few days in a manner that conforms with WP:PERMISSION, then it would appropriate to reinstate my "keep" vote. But if Michelin declines permission, then it would seem best to err on the side of caution. Anyways, thanks for taking the time to provide your copyright analysis. --Mike Agricola (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

look again at my response - there are hundreds more items in the Ireland List added today - is that really fair use ? CPVIO (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What list are you talking about? The Banner talk 00:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To the extent we're talking about the impact this compilation has on the market for the Michelin guides.... my entirely unresearched and subjective opinion is that people who plan on spending that kind of money to eat out probably will want to do more research than looking up a list on Wikipedia. If I'm going to blow that kind of dough, I want to know what Michelin recommends. And, for that matter, most Michelin starred restaurants are quite likely notable businesses, almost by virtue of that fact alone: certainly any current or former three-star restaurant is, even by my stingy interpretation. A Michelin Guide review is certainly a quite reliable source for writing an article about a notable business: so we even get to reproduce information -- we certainly can name house specialties and famous dishes -- about specific restaurants from the guide itself. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my understanding is that it is more than that. The star awards function as the main marketing tool of the guides. Publishing the lists in press releases and encouraging other media to print them promotes the brand - originally the tyres and now the guides themselves. Issuing a press release or putting in a paid advertisement saying that the guide had been published and people would have to buy a copy to find out who had the most stars would not work, and we would not be having this discussion. By encouraging us all to see the Michelin classification as the most respected and trustworthy, they believe that we are more likely to select Michelin when faced with a range of competing travel and restaurant guides - anyone looking at one will see that it contains vastly more information than we are talking about here. --AJHingston (talk) 09:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm by no means an expert in copyright issues, but I would like to respond anyways. Copyright intrinsically attaches to creative works, including (arguably) lists that are a product of creative, subjective, judgment: "If a source is based on 'value judgments', it may be protected by copyright, even if it looks very similar to fact. And even if the source is fact, copyright may still protect its selection and arrangement if these are creative." (WP:Copyright in lists). If copyright does apply to the lists under review, then either it is a WP:COPYVIO, or fair use. "Fair use" applies when the amount of copying is de minimis in relation to the work copied (which may or may not apply here - I'm no expert). However, the argument that it helps Michelin so they won't mind doesn't make the use non-infringing - it simply is an argument that it's unlikely that Michelin will enforce their copyright. So WP:COPYVIO still applies. (As an analogy, someone who uploads an infomercial copied from television to YouTube will likely "get away" with it because the video creates additional exposure which helps sell the product being marketed - but that doesn't make the YouTube video non-infringing according to the letter of the law unless the rights holder gives permission). If Michelin gives WP:PERMISSION, then that should resolve the matter. --Mike Agricola (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have no answer yet of Michelin UK, I like to point at the situation about the Netherlands: List of Michelin starred restaurants in the Netherlands. This list is largely based on articles in a hospitality magazine (and a few Guides to back up the listings in the magazine). Would it not be likely the Michelin would sue the magazine after publishing the listings when they were copyrighted? For example: this one (1957-1964), this one (2006-2011) or this one (2013). The Banner talk 23:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Agricola's point about material still being copyright even if the use is permissible (and fair use does not extinguish copyright in the source) is at the heart of the difficulty here, and why I believe the issues are far reaching. My remark about award lists above was not an idle one. A policy that says if the source is copyright it must come out is not something WP can easily accept. It is the violation aspect of the policy that we need to concentrate on. That still raises plenty of problems in itself of course, since it comes to a question of what is enforceable in the Californian courts which already puts WP at odds with the law in the place of the place of domicile of many copyright holders. In the ordinary sense of the term, though, it is difficult to see that it can be a violation if the holder has actually encouraged reproduction as has happened here. [I had better add the disclaimer that I am not a lawyer and that any statement, express or implied, regarding the law.....] --AJHingston (talk) 10:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if we can conclude that the "holder has actually encouraged reproduction." For example, it is possible that the magazine obtained special permission from Michelin to republish the listings mentioned above. It doesn't necessarily follow from the existence of some reproductions that the copyright holder actively encourages or permits all reproductions. It seems to me that direct permission from the copyright holder itself should be required to clarify that reproduction is permitted beyond the allowances of fair use. Again though, I'm not a lawyer or any sort of expert - which brings me to one final thought on a general note: In the future, the issue of copyright in list articles is probably better handled over at WP:CP. The administrators over there who review the articles brought to their attention are have considerable experience in assessing copyright issues. --Mike Agricola (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am basing my assertion on the evidence of things like the Michelin 2013 PDF listing on the Michelin servers as well as all over the internet, plus associated press releases. That, and established usage. I agree that this is a legal issue rather than a conventional AFD one, which is why I declined to !vote, but if they followed a prudential line in relation to anything that relies on material that is or might be subject to copyright a lot of WP would have to be taken down. Admittedly, that is the approach taken in Wiki Commons, but it is so far reaching in its implications that it will be the subject of widespread public discussion anyway. --AJHingston (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is a legal issue, it is clear that these lists must be deleted. The Michelin websites' copyright notice states unequivocally that they do not allow re-licensing of their material via Wikipedia's free license or any other license, specifically these types of documents - so you are clearly in the wrong here. Michelin only allows private use of such materials. As per implications each case is different a quick consideration of the different list you mentioned raised different issues from the ones detailed here so per the AfD's norms they require separate nomination and discussions. 03:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

This greatly oversimplifies both the legal position and WP policy, which has been explained concerns copyright violation. The published summary (which as I have pointed out is on Michelin's own website as well as accompanying their press releases publicising the guides) contains no such restriction on use and as explained there are good reasons why they encourage pubicity for it. Nobody is denying that the material is copyright - indeed the history of copyright in the UK, which differs from that in the US, has always assumed copyright in original works regardless of whether it is actually asserted. It is permissible use that is the issue. --AJHingston (talk) 11:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is something that gets ample coverage in magazines and travel guides. Shouldn't it be called List of Michelin three starred restaurants in the United Kingdom instead though? Dream Focus 15:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Err notability has not been disputed - how is coverage relevant to the Copyright issues ? CPVIO (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As others have already explained, its not a copyright violation. We have ample lists like this already, such as the list articles in Category:The New York Times Best Seller list, Forbes list of billionaires, and many others. People who buy a restaurant guide will still buy it, not just to see the star ratings, but to read about them also. Dream Focus 18:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree the copyright is the central issues - any attempt to generalize this request to other situation goes against the system used at AFD. The rules state that each nomination should be judged on it own merit. This is a very narrow and specific request and not an attempt to rewrite the policy on list copyright. The only serious dissenting voice is pleading confusion per uncertainty of other lists which have not been discussed here and have little to in common with this case in which Copy & Paste has been demonstrated and the copyright is from a published book! CPVIO (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its the same exact thing you see all over Wikipedia, and discussions about it have been had in the past at times over the years. It does not violate any copyright laws. Also, your nomination for deletion of Category:Michelin Guide starred restaurants in the United Kingdom is just too ridiculous to take serious. Dream Focus 10:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A final comment:

So far the legal opinions have represented a US centric point of view. But Wikipedia belongs to the world.
The legal hazards faced by WMF due to US based interpretation of CPVIO's are significant but not the only ones that are of import! The WMF's legal team's activity is a matter of public record and and in their statements the WMF's legal counsel has indicate that this team acts first and foremost to protect their employers, the members of the board from lawsuits. To this end they have insulated them by dissociating them from editor's offenses. In the event of a lawsuit they have a reasonable budget which also provides insurance against lawsuits.
The WMF does not have a record in protecting non-Board Members who break laws outside the US or in it.
The real legal hazard of this type of CPVIO is that Michelin may file suit against Wikipedians like User:The Banner or User:Miyagawa who have indicated here per snow keep votes that left to their own devices would resume their editing with disregard to copyright.
If this was done only at their own risks it would not be an issue. But Wikipedia is a collaborative venture 'these action create a legal hazard to other members of the community - an unacceptable one.
A Multinational Company like Michelin has lawyers in all the countries the work and they can file suit at a time and venue of greatest opportunity suit against any editor or admin involved with editing or care taking of these articles. Precedents in France Italy and Germany indicate that the suits may also include local chapter members too. And if they find a single editor who editing under a real name and has done as little as reverted a vandal who blanked the page they are certain to win. In such a case the law Judge would be European and original ownership, Ownership of derived work, Sweat of the brow, Copy and paste from other sites, Recreating the list based on their party sources, Trademark infringement would all be relevant arguments.
The monetary penalty for a single CPVIO offense is debilitating for the typical Wikipedian in most jurisdictions.
Anonymity is no defense - the policy against outing Wikipedia do not bind the law courts of any county. A multinational like Michelin could get a decision in France and enforce the discovery of evidence in the US and file for damages in Europe.
Regular editors are not insured except by the community taking a firm hand with copyright violation and by ousting unrepentant copyright violators from its midst regardless of their rank and experience.
I therefore request that the closer make a clear decision which could be used to quickly remove further copyright violation of these and other lists of Michelin stared restaurant from Wikipedia ASAP per the original nomination!
If people need clarification on other lists these are not relevant here and can be discussed on the appropriate talk/policy pages or in the copyright violation forum. CPVIO (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been nice when you did this under your own name, instead of creating a sockpuppet for it. And by now, I think you are making legal threats against Wikipedia. The Banner talk 04:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not made any legal threats since the only one who can take legal action is the copyright owner Michelin.

I'm sad to see you are such a bad sport. Anyone can see that this is a matter of law and not of stacking a votes.

Your talk page shows that you take great pleasure from bossing other editors you disagree with, this is not something I will tolerate. You can be sure to get my next response at the Admin's notice board unless you strike out any accusations you cannot prove. CPVIO (talk) 08:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The one who is a bad sport, is you. You created an obvious sockpuppet to stir up the soup. I have used my personal mail-address to request a comment on "my own" articles and the copyvio issues that exist according to you. Unless their legal department is still looking at it, I assume that their silence is in fact the answer "nonsense". But the real reply is still pending. Besides that, you have put a malformed AfD on "Category:Michelin Guide starred restaurants in the United Kingdom". When you had a genuine concern about copyvio, you would have seen that that category has nothing to do with copyvio as it is a collection of articles of restaurants with at least one Michelin star instead of a creative or derivative work. The Banner talk 10:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've had a week to reveal your real account. I've opened a case here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CPVIO. Miyagawa (talk) 09:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the bullet list of nonsense, Wikipedia is hosted in America, so follows American laws. Feel free to email the company and point to the articles and category you believe violates their copyrights, and see if they really have an issue with it. This is not cutting into their sales, for reasons I already mentioned. Dream Focus 10:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request close and keep: Based on this being entirely the wrong forum for this discussion. Ironically it was because I typed WP:CPVIO that I discovered Wikipedia:Copyright problems which deals specifically with these types of matter and seems to have numerous experts on the subject who have used their own usernames for years. I suggest we move the discussion there. Miyagawa (talk) 09:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can also support this. Per WP:Copyright in lists and Moonriddengirl's comment, I do think that sufficient concern exists that a copyright expert should take a close look at the article. But this is a legal matter which is properly a matter for WP:CP, not an AfD. A procedural close/keep would be warranted. --Mike Agricola (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - Moonriddengirl's comments makes it clear that based on WP:Copyright in lists she sides with the conservatives view which is when in doubt of a copyright infringement remove the material ASAP. There are plenty of precedents at AdF for this. While I don't want to put a gun to anyone's head - now that it has been determined that these lists are derivative works we can'y pretend that these lists are OK to host on Wikipedia under a CC by SA license, not when when Michelin states unequivocally that they don't allow re-licensing. Sure it is convenient for some people to host copies of these lists here? - but until we change the policy to use a "95% Possible Copyright Infringement - Edit at your own risk" Banner these lists needs to go. Consider [[11]] and [[12]] which demonstrate the Wikipedian are the any involved Wikipedian is at risk from this type of material. However if someone get the WMF legal counsel gives an opinion that this is ok and that they take legal responsibility for such an infringement then the lists may be restored via deletion review. CPVIO (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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) Mediran (t • c) 22:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Waverly-Shell Rock Senior High School[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this school is notable. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

High schools are generally considered inherently notable. The school clearly exists. On the other hand, per WP:NHS, a Google search turns up very little of particular use. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- However, it does seem most articles on verified high schools are kept regardless of the official guideline, for what its worth. TB randley 02:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a senior high school. No reason to think that sources cannot be found to meet WP:ORG. We keep high schools for very good reasons; not only do they influence the lives of thousands of people but they also play a significant part in their communities. Expansion not deletion is the way to go with such stubs. TerriersFan (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It clearly exists, and as a high school ought to be given the benefit of the doubt. A Google search does turn up enough to verify the article. Ducknish (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Can't see any reason to delete this. Notable per the usual standards, plenty of coverage exists (just look at the GNews results for "Waverly Shell Rock"), and this article already has substantive content. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per longstanding consensus that high schools of verified existence are presumed notable. Carrite (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many more newspaper sources can be found by eliminating the word "Senior" from Google search terms. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES accurately describes the outcome of the vast majority of such AfDs, and I find it a useful tool. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High schools are generally considered to be notable, if they are verifiable. The longstanding and general consensus at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES describes this in future detail. TB randley 02:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for my usual reasons. Verified secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. This looks on the face of it to be a no consensus case, but two of the delete !votes are from single purpose accounts, and another is plainly incorrect with regard to the sources. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomex[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

GNG is non existant for an encyclopedia. This is not a consumer website listing every business (and associated complaints) little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 04:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - [13][14][15][16](OK, that one may be a bit more dubious, but she is a payed journalist, this is just her personal site)[17] - multiple WP:RS, and that's not even including the smaller-circulation things, like Toronto Star... passes WP:GNG, contrary to nominator's assertions (for all the wrong reasons, admittedly, in terms of company practices) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nomination has no merit, it's an "I don't like it" style of nomination. This clearly meets both GNG and 42, and shouldn't be deleted just because it's a smaller company. Some of the smallest companies have had big controversies that have been covered, and that makes them notable. gwickwire^talk_editing 17:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, it's been established in 2 AfD discussions already that this company is notable. I'm not sure what the nominator expected to change this time, but I'd like everyone to take those into account. gwickwire^talk_editing 17:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Has nothing to do with whether or not I like this (well, I don't like flowers, they stink). Do we have articles on car dealers that rip off granny then the local "eyewitness news" does a story on them? Of course not. yeah yeah, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer 17:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Other stuff such as two previous "keep" consensuses (spelling/is a real word?), and nothing having changed since then? This got more than the local "eyewitness news", it's been covered in Canada and apparently Australia in some larger news organizations. gwickwire^talk_editing 17:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:CCC, but I'm not opposed to withdrawing this nomination, and would do so if I knew how. little green rosetta(talk)
      central scrutinizer 18:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Technically, since there's been one other delete vote (even though it's majorly COI), it shouldn't be withdrawn. Just strike your nom and say "I'd withdraw this now, reasonreasonreason" and someone uninvolved should take care of it. gwickwire^talk_editing 18:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - company is private, small and has no significance. Artcile became the ego battle of engaged editors and digrunted customers blocking any reasonable efforts from other editors to express different point of view.Dimitri Lokhonia (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not see that Bloomex has any notable to be inclided in Wikipedia as per GNGDimitri Lokhonia (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Moved to near his original comment, and Dimitri, you need to tell us why the sources we provide don't meet GNG or your !vote will be discounted. gwickwire^talk_editing 14:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note this editor has a self admitted, multiple times, WP:COI, and has not listened to the people in the other two deletion discussions and the people discussing with him now about why he can't just erase parts of his article. gwickwire^talk_editing 18:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -I am an owner of Bloomex. I tried to delete article 3 years ago but it was blocked by CliffC arguing that company was so bad that Wikipedia "deserves" to keep the information about my company. I stepped after 3 years to fix information about the company, I have created,which employs 200+ happy employees and have served one millionth customer last December. My attempts and attempts of other editors got blocked by 2 editors ( or may be that is teh same person) CliffC and glickwire. I will appreciate if you disregard opinion of these 2 editors on the subject. I will greatly appreciate if other independent editors can look into the subject, With much respect to Wikipedia Guys, Sincerely Dimitri Lokhonia (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck duplicate vote, and it was big "I don't like it" and COI gwickwire^talk_editing 19:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources don't "address the subject directly in detail" as required by WP:GNG. Peter James (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tell me which ones "don't 'address the subject directly'" or "in detail". 1 Sure it's not the whole article, but it's a pretty good length section. No news article today covers only one specific thing. 2 Yes Ellen Roseman isn't working for a journalism company at this time, but she is working freelance for some, and for multiple government organizations of Canada which she claims to represent. 3 Nothing here, obviously reliable and in-depth. 4 Not a newspaper, but sources the BBB rating obviously reliably. Google Bloomex controversy and you'll find more. gwickwire^talk_editing 21:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - They're news reports and columns that don't provide enough detail for an article about the company. For example there's nothing about the history or operation of the company, and coverage of its products is only incidental. Peter James (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where, but where, does it say the history or operation of a company has to be covered in-depth for it to pass WP:GNG? Absolutely nowhere (it may be required for WP:ORG, but in this case, that would be irrelevant anyway.) Besides, Peter James, your argument for deletion is actually a reason to move this to "Bloomex controversy" or something along those lines, not even close to a deletion reason. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is without question. I also see a date in the future when the owner would come back and try to make a new article with less negativity or have someone do it for him hoping he's off your radar.Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 00:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Article has clearly become a venue for both credible and discreditable contributions with constant revisions and "undo revisions" - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bloomex&action=history - the reality of the situation is Wiki is not supposed to be a platform to sabitogue the credibility of a company or conversely an opportunity for a company to advertise or promote - it is supposed to be a go-to source for the unbiased, relevant and accurate representation of a person, place or thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markamp (talk • contribs) 02:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC) — Markamp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Struck vote as duplicate through sockpuppet, will let others/closing admin decide on the actual Dimitri vote. gwickwire^talk_editing 23:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Wikipedia is supposed to be a repository of knowledge on notable topics, and anything that is in reliable sources and verifiable about said topics. This meets GNG, therefore we must have an article on it. We must include what's in reliable sources in said article, and we've done that. Just because the owner doesn't like it doesn't mean we delete an article. Nor does constant revisions. gwickwire^talk_editing 02:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, some of the "biased" stuff has been entered by this WP:SPA anyway, from what I can see. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
clearly the definition of "reliable source" is subjective at best - my point is that this article has become a platform for "unreliable" and "unscrupulous" editing - why can anyone challenge (delete) the integrity or reliability of a source simply because the source is "the" source? Does that not make them "more" reliable - how is accurately identifying geographic locations backed up by a company press release "unsubstantiated"? Why is it not good enough to provide a link to the company's "Gift Basket" page to confirm that they sell "gift Baskets" in addition to "Flowers". Why is it not good enough to say they have production facilities in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Halifax - this is clearly a unique business model in the floral business - does that not meet the "repository of knowledge" criteria? IMO there is a clear and evident effort afoot to suppress anything that isn't negative associated with this company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markamp (talk • contribs) 18:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is significant coverage of the controversy and this company in WP:RS. Your WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasoning doesn't hold any water. There is no "conspiracy", stop alleging that there is, follow WP:AGF and stop trying to promote the company - WP:NOTADVERT. Where the production facilities are is fairly irrelevant to Wikipedia (unless they have had some coverage somewhere: they haven't). The fact they sell gift baskets possibly should be in there, but not in the promotional way you keep pushing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:NNC - and an encyclopedic article requires more than just a criticism section. Peter James (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JOH Architects[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not established, and no evidence found for it to be met: no major publications, awards or projects. ELEKHH^T 04:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH^T 04:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I added another reference for their competition success but that really just emphasises that they are a small firm winning their first award in what appears to be a local competition. No other evidence found to demonstrate WP:CORPDEPTH notability. AllyD (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete blatantly fails WP:CORP. minor company. LibStar (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per AllyD. Nick-D (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neither of the awards seem to be particularly notable in and of themselves, and I don't see any other indication of notability for this firm. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-fascism and religion[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates WP:SYNTH. Of course politics and religion are deeply related, including neo-fascist politics. However this article seems to be a synthesis where anything political, from George Bush to Imperial Japan, that someone has called "neo-fascist" and that has some kind of relationship to something religious is included. No secondary sources are provided that show the overall concept of the article has been noted elsewhere than WP. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nomination that this article advances a position that is not entirely supported by the sources cited, that is, that it is attempting to link these two subjects in a way that they may not explicitly be. Ducknish (talk) 03:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Specifically, I agree that including [everything] "that someone has called "neo-fascist" and that has some kind of relationship to something religious" is a problem. In many cases the noe-fascist label is disputed and is not the standard way of describing the phenomenas (like for instance Wahabism). The overall impression is that the article doesn't present a well defined academic view or theory, but is mixing a lot of things in order to give a rather original presentation; the article appears pretty pseudo-intellectual, and frankly, bears a resememblance to schoolboy essays. Iselilja (talk) 12:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. & others. Runs afoul of WP:SYNTH.--JayJasper (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear case of WP:SYNTH.--Staberinde (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. L Faraone 02:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms of Western Sahara[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:POVFORK of Coat of arms of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:NPOV: Western Sahara is a disputed territory claimed by 2 entities : the SADR and Morocco. Per WP:NPOV, nor SADR nor Morocco's Coats of arms should be described as the sole ones for Western Sahara. This article has also to be kept per RfC. --Omar-toons (talk) 09:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one other then you agrees with your interpretation of the RfC, not myself, not NickCT, not Noleander, not Location. No one else wants the articles to be split, not myself, not User:Charles Essie, not User:koavf, not User:Dzlinker. The (misnamed) "Coat of arms of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" article clearly acknowledges the coats of arms of the Moroccan regions of Western Sahara. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one? There are 14 editors that agreed on the RfC to have a page called "Flag of Western Sahara" linking to the flag of each claimant apart. Btw, here I quote Sandstein's RfC closure message: "I find that there is consensus for proposal 3 (i.e., a page explaining and linking to the various flags used to represent the territory, similar to Flag of Korea). This proposal has by far the most support of all, and is supported by a substantial majority of contributors". Therefore, this page should not be deleted unless there's a clear consensus that outweighs the RfC--Omar-toons (talk) 06:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There should be one article and it should be named Coat of arms of Western Sahara per WP:COMMONNAME. This is a perfect example of nonsensical forking. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of course, per nom and Koavf. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To clarify, the scope of Coat of arms of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, despite it's title, is Western Sahara, not just the SADR. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Muntazah Oryx Investments[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Fails WP:ORG. reddogsix (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason you aren't getting ghits or Gnews is because none of the relevant news articles or hits are in English- they are mainly in Arabic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.132.236.205 (talk) 06:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC) I do not think this should be deleted... I have ghits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.142.128 (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I used to live in Doha, and I remember the big licensing scandal for this company. It is important in Qatars business history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.132.236.205 (talk) 09:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As above, Muntazah Oryx represents an important company in Qatar's business history and Qatar's future. It is certainly more relevant and important than many other business articles on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.132.236.205 (talk) 06:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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) Mediran (t • c) 22:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The True Lives of the Fabulous Killjoys (comic book)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unpublished book, only available sources are primary or self published, does not meet WP:BKCRIT. Tgeairn (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Danger_Days:_The_True_Lives_of_the_Fabulous_Killjoys#Comic_series. When this releases it'll likely get far more coverage than it has now. As it is, all I can find are posts in RS that just re-quote a press release or are so brief in nature that they aren't really enough to show notability right here and now. I added a section about the series in the Danger Days article, so this can redirect there until further notice. It's just WP:TOOSOON for it to have an article right now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It definitely skirts the edge of WP:TOOSOON but in my opinion it just squeaks by notability. Even if some of the articles cited are stating the same information, there is clearly a great deal of interest in it, and being one of the most anticipated comics of the year puts it above other unpublished books. I suspect that there will continue to be more information about it (ala the cover reveal), so I would advocate just going ahead and keeping it up as opposed to redirecting. Caseylf (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The IGN bit in the article counts. Newsarama mentioned it. [18] Digital Spy has a longer article about it. [19] Other news results to look through if you need more convincing. [20] Dream Focus 20:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are sufficient articles to prove notability, as illustrated above. --Ben Knapp (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Meets WP:BKCRIT #1: "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." All but one of the sources in the article is from the publisher. – Zntrip 22:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was on the fence about this one. To my mind, what's more relevant here than WP:BKCRIT is WP:CRYSTAL. While "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors", as long as the article avoids "advertising and unverified claims" it should be OK. Taking a cue from WP:NFF, maybe one thing we should consider is whether or not artwork has already been produced. In this case, independent sources have released some preliminary art. Also, there is a defined publication date. While comic books don't always come out on time, both of these factors together seem to put this impending release of this publication beyond mere rumor or speculation. We can always put it up for deletion again if it never materializes (although it is true that some articles about never-published comics have lingered long past their supposed pub dates.) --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 last surviving veterans of military insurgencies and wars. The history will remain intact in case anyone wants to merge any of it. J04n(talk page) 13:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Meisel (Silesian Uprisings veteran)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Aside from arguably being a case of WP:BIO1E (the one event being outliving all the other veterans of the conflict), this article fails WP:N's coverage of requirement of non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent third-party sources. Polish Wikipedia has a few sources, but they are all brief mentions that contain trivial details and nothing that suggests that Meisel has received extensive coverage or could sustain a full Wikipedia article; anything from those sources could easily be incorporated into his section in List of last surviving veterans of military insurgencies and wars. I don't think redirect would be helpful here, although the Wilhelm Meisel hatnote could be altered to point to the aforementioned list. Canadian Paul 23:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have to agree I am not seeing anything very notable or reliable about the pl wiki sources. Merger to the list suggested by op seems at this point reasonable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if merging to the list please make sure the correct obituary url follows http://www.nowiny.rybnik.pl/artykul,14749.html, the one on the pl.wp is broken. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 00:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support the suggested deletion and changing the redirect to the list. Diego (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. Spinning Spark 15:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Historical powers[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Indiscriminate list. A historical "power" is basically any state that once existed and does no longer. We have categories for this kind of thing. —Srnec (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – No plausible match found in WP:DEL-REASON. Article satisfies WP:LISTPURP. Praemonitus (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while the deletion rationale might be flawed, (a category for this is just as bad) this is a big chunk of poorly sourced original research on someone personal opinion what a "historical power" is, how the hell this survived since 2006 is beyond me. Secret ^account 02:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I had in mind Category:Former countries and its subsidiaries. I'm sure there are others. I did not mean we need a Category:Historical powers. —Srnec (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The criteria are hazy and confusing. If they could be improved, I might vote to keep. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the entries appear to be regional powers that successfully expanded their borders. It could perhaps be constrained by requiring multiple generations of longevity and the use of hard power to expand its borders. Praemonitus (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Secret. There are many ways to describe power, and many opinions on what states had what power. An indiscriminate list does not help the reader. CMD (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 00:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP does need some articles along the lines of an Outline of History, which is what this one seems to be trying to do. I think it would be better to take a more inclusive approach, not segregating "powers" from other weaker nations and groups. Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep absolutely not this article is vital it is a major historical article it is comparatively well sourced it has a very clear definition of inclusion just because some rogue deflationists aren't familiar with this important historical subject dos't mean that one of wikipedias most helpful articles should be deleted the definition of historical power has stood the test of time for centuries and is more than just an opinion the nations listed here are almost universally agreed upon as being historical powers and if this page is deleted it will be recreated again due to its vital importance Irishfrisian (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep most of the complaints leveled againsts this article seem unfounded and don't really seem to fit this article i personally view this article in high regard98.250.4.115 (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article satisfies every content guideline and the reasons for deletion are not well grounded on policy. Any discussion for cleanup or repurposing of the article should be held at its talk page. Diego (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep I can't see anything wrong with this article. It is the kind of thing that fits well in a encyclopedia. Also makes an interesting read. Mtpaley (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 3/4 of the keeps directly above are WP:ILIKEIT. The fact is, there's no need for an article to compile and restate information that exists elsewhere. That is why we have categories, as the nominator said. And since this article is nothing but such a compilation, and has no notability in its own regard, it ought to be deleted. Ducknish (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...which is balanced with 4/5 of the deletes being WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The term "historical powers" is regularly used in history books and academic papers referring to the kind of civilizations included here, so the claims for a lack of notability are moot. That some of the information is repeated in various articles has never been a reason for deletion, we even have the WP:SUMMARY guideline stating that doing so is a good idea. Diego (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The term "historical power" is never used in any technical sense, except perhaps by Nietzsche in an entirely different sense than the one meant here. This article violates OR and SYNTH. Or can Diego cite one of these academic papers using the term in this way? The first result I get at JSTOR is a reference to "the cumulative historical power of leftist parties". Not, I think, what Diego means. Srnec (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This one is a good example; you don't need to have a technical sense, since it's a common language term. It's better if you search for "historical powerS" instead. If you include adjectives like "culture", "civilization", "war" or "economy" you get to the ones that use the term with the current meaning. Diego (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The linked paper describes historical powers this way: "In the centuries leading to 1500, several important power centers developed concurrently around the world, with no single power dominating. Ming China, the Ottoman Empire, Russia, Japan and West-Central Europe were powers within their respective regions, and at the time it was by no means clear that West-Central Europe would eventually rise to the top. About 1500, however, one key difference developed: all of the power centers except Europe were led by a centralized, unifying authority that maintained a “uniformity of belief and practice…in commercial activities and weapons development.”" Diego (talk) 10:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would suggest that what matters here is not the name of the article - if the article name is not much used in relevant literature, it can be changed - but deciding whether the article has a viable topic. And it certainly does seem to have a topic - even if it would perhaps best be described as Historic states which at some time in their existence were too important for any of their neighbours to ignore (and historians often do refer to such states, at any period in history, as "powers"). Considering it that way, it's fairly obvious that the article is not indiscriminate in the way that the nominator was suggesting - there have been states of which this is true and states of which it is not true, and almost all the states discussed in the article are of the first type. However, we can still ask whether the topic, as treated in the article, is coherent - and I am some way from being properly convinced that it is. States can achieve that level of importance in a variety of different ways, and on a wide variety of different scales (Sparta, for instance, was that important for perhaps 200 years, but it is quite possible that nobody living more than 500 miles from Sparta ever heard of it during that period). And the article does very little to take these factors into account. There are, I think, good (or at least satisfactory) Wikipedia articles to be written on one or more topics closely related to this one - but I am not at all sure that they would look anything like this one. PWilkinson (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have said that any and every state is a "power", but are not all equally powerful. This article is SYNTH and OR. And hopeless: it describes Qajar Persia as "high modern". Interestingly, the actual government of Persia was ignored by all of its neighbours during World War I. It was not even in your sense a "power". Srnec (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are "articles to be written on one or more topics closely related to this one", the content of this one should be WP:PRESERVEd ("As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained"), not deleted. This is policy. Diego (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The question of which former countries were (great) powers and which were not is leagely a POV issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All of these are referred to by historians as great powers. That is a proper term for it. Webster dictionary even has a definition for great power [21], saying its the same as "superpowers", that term used today. Listing what countries were considered great powers in their day, all having a significant effect on history, is very encyclopedic. Perhaps a rename to List of nations considered great powers throughout various times in history, or something shorter. Dream Focus 15:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are not debating the term "great power", but rather "historical power". The term "great power" is a modern invention, so there are no states "considered great powers in their day" before relatively recently. Srnec (talk) 06:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're here to the decide the fate of the article not its name. If the name causes confusion, it can be changed. How about List of nations which all modern day historians consider to be notable powers at some time in history to clarify things? Dream Focus 07:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 07:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know that interesting is not a good reason to keep. Perhaps what this really needs is a move to a better name? Bearian (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.