Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/58 Cirencester town service


 * 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 Cirencester. Liz Read! Talk! 06:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

58 Cirencester town service

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article without a shadow of a doubt fails WP:GNG. Absolutely no significant coverage for this one. Only thing I can see is one or two local newspaper hits on Google News on funding; apart from that, absolutely nothing else. Completely run-on-the-mill bus route and zero notability. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Besides hyper-local coverage of the route being cut, there are no sources. This is not a notable bus route. No coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Routine and local but not hyper-local. Peter James (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per the precedent set at Articles for deletion/747 Uppingham–Leicester. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:PERNOM and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Garuda3 (talk) 10:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, we get it, you're salty your other bus article got deleted. This fails GNG by a mile and you seem to agree since you've yet to make any argument otherwise. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it's that if anyone else but you wrote that comment you'd be down on them like a ton of bricks. Garuda3 (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've actually been trying to respond to others' comments less, even when they're clearly wrong. You, on the other hand, have been bludgeoning more lately. And such a comment would not provoke such a reply from me, actually. Regardless, you don't seem to disagree with the substance of what I said, so this appears to simply be you airing your own grievances. It's really not that hard to avoid having your articles AfD'd, by the way. Just ask me - none of mine have ever been, because I check for notability before creating articles, not the other way around. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * check for notability would imply that there is actually a specific "notability" bar to meet when we both know such a thing doesn't exist. GNG asks for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject which my bus route articles have. It does not exclude local coverage. Everything else, including essays, is entirely subjective. Evidently various editors do not like bus content on Wikipedia despite the articles meeting WP:GNG. Garuda3 (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I actually don't care whether it's buses, train stations, beauty pageants, CEOs, or yachts. I care that articles meet GNG, which the vast majority of editors do not interpret the way you do. However, I mostly watch the transportation deletion sorting page. Your accusation of bias is ludicrous - you really think someone who spends most of his time on Wikipedia writing about trains hates mass transit? "Everything I don't like is subjective, and therefore my interpretation wins" isn't a compelling argument. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody has actually quoted the relevant part of GNG that prohibits local coverage, From my time here I've learnt editors will "interpret" guidelines however they like. You keep suggesting the articles don't meet GNG, but haven't said which part of the guideline actually excludes them. Whereas on the previous AfD I completed a source assessment table that demonstrated they do meet GNG. Point me to where I said you hate mass transit? Garuda3 (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. "No coverage" is a lie, obviously because there are two sources here that count towards GNG. An WP:ATD would be to merge the article to Cirencester or to a new article on Cotswold Green. I once again repeat that GNG does not exclude local coverage. Garuda3 (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to argue further. It fails GNG and you don't have to accept it but it's what it is. You can't expect 2 sources in local newspapers to be "significant coverage". It sounds like what you're trying to do is create an article on every single random bus route in the country and you think you're improving the encyclopedia by doing that but you're really not and in fact, you're doing the opposite. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The section on significant coverage ("Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.) does not mention whether the source is local or not.
 * in fact, you're doing the opposite you can't just throw around accusations like that without any reasoning. Garuda3 (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * So, your only sources are ones to do with funding in the local area and nothing else. It's like saying that a new local road which is being built but has had funding issues and these funding issues featured in the local news so it is notable. So, that's what you're saying? Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. There are plenty of road articles on Wikipedia. Garuda3 (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. The info. here is already in the Cirencester page. It could be repeated in the Stratton page if desired. However, this article should not be kept as a standalone page as it fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a local newspaper. WP:NOTNP and News articles though essays make a valid point — the news should not be transitory but of likely historical significance. This article is an example of bus route funding issues; yes, of importance to the places affected and could possibly be mentioned in the Wikipedia pages for those places. It could also be used as an example in an article on UK bus route funding problems, which is the bigger issue here. But common sense dictates that service withdrawals/additions, timetable changes, route variations, fare increases (which could all be reported in the local press) are not reasons to give every local bus route its own page. Rupples (talk) 01:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The info is in the Cirencester page because I added it in. I've already had to fight (via the talk page) to keep it there with someone reverting my edits claiming it to be "excessive detail" (despite the section being shorter than the already existing road and rail sections). Garuda3 (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep The three sources in the article all discuss the bus route. The third source, "Joy after vital Cirencester bus route saved", devotes 584 words exclusively to the bus route. If others agree with User:Rupples that the information is better contained elsewhere, then merge/redirect to Cirencester as an ATD. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 06:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete The coverage is entirely routine. Wikipedia is not the place to report the local residents' (justified) joy every time something gets funded. BruceThomson (talk) 07:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge into Cirencester. It's notable but really short and most of the content is already in the suggested target. Do move the references that are missing at the target, then redirect! Failing that, just keep. gidonb (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, the coverage is local and routine, I'm not particularly against a merge but I don't think this info is really that notable. Suonii180 (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Redirect to Cirencester per my own stricken conclusion above, WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP. The reason for the change is that the references, that I indicated as needing to be merged, have been merged after writing my opinion. In other words, the suggested "smerge" has been completed. gidonb (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I ask though that you keep an eye on the Cirencester page as there are editors over there trying to remove any mention of the bus route. Garuda3 (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Garuda3, if I see something, I'll say something! gidonb (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Consensus still isn't clear, alternatives to deletion have been brought up recently. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taking Out The Trash (talk) 03:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to Cirencester. It's more useful there than as a standalone article. Peter James (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Nukerstt (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Although I disagree with editors claiming the route isn't notable, there is some merit in merging to Cirencester as that does feel like a good home for this content. Happy to support a merge as a WP:ATD. Garuda3 (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to Cirencester, whether this passes GNG or not I see no real reason for it to be a WP:SPLIT from the main article, especially considering how short the bus section is there. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Absolutely nothing notable about this bus route. Ajf773 (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2023 (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.