Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buses in Prague


 * 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) ansh 666 01:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Buses in Prague

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced article which thus lacks proof of the notability of this subject. Tvx1 22:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Not mentioning sources in article itself doesn't necessarily mean a subject is not notable. Tymon. r   Do you have any questions?  22:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, but doing so leaves us with a manner to determine the notability of the subject. Notability is not assumed or inherited.Tvx1 01:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep A main article/list about all public bus transit lines in a major European city like this is going to inherently meet WP:BUSOUTCOMES. In fact that guideline states that individual lines should be a commonly merged into a "suitable list article," which is exactly what this is, it seems to me. Also, in terms of Category:Public transport in Prague, see WP:CLN. Whatever the shortcomings of the article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I seem to have missed the point where wikipedia became a database of all buslines in the world. Why should we be a mirror of all the websites of bus companies in the world? and your quoted guideline doesn't say every such list is suitable. You haven't provided any clear argument why this particular list is suitable.Tvx1 01:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I see that this one and an attempt to speedy delete List of bus routes in Malta came out of a disagreement that the nominator is having here, at User_talk:Tvx1, over the fate of a rejected Afc. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please AGF. If the author of the draft provides independent sources demonstrating notability it might be accepted. The user mentioned two other articles of questionable quality/suitability and after realising they were right I instigated the deletion processes.Tvx1 01:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am simply pointing out that this is where Afds seemed to originate. As for the rest, I have just issued the nominator a 1st level warning against restoring the speedy delete tag, when I removed it with explanation that I felt it required an Afd -- just as this one does. The restoration of the tag is disruptive. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The csd has nothing to do with this deletion discussion. Discuss that the article that this nomiation deals with.Tvx1 01:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You have my !vote above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, clearly a notable topic with a long and interesting history, see better referenced and developed Czech article on the same topic for inspiration: cs:Městská autobusová doprava v Praze. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not so "clearly" at all. No evidence is provided at all. Another wiki isn't justification.Tvx1 15:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. The history and present state of buses in a major European capital city is unquestionably a notable topic. If this were just a list of present day route numbers and stopping patterns you might have a case, but it is much more than this. The well-sourced Czech article demonsitrates that there is scope for expansion too (not that this is a requirement). Thryduulf (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "The history and present state of buses in a major European capital city is unquestionably a notable topic." Nope, wrong. Just because a city is notable, it doesn't mean a bus system in it is as well. Notability isn't inherited but needs to independently proven. And something being notable enough for the another wiki doesn't mean it automatically is for this one as well.Tvx1 19:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep as per above - No valid reason has been presented for deletion, I would advise the nominator to read WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. – Davey 2010 Talk 18:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Pure opinion. My reason is very valid. Notability isn't inherited or assumed. It has to be demonstrated.Tvx1 19:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Deletion reason of being unsourced has been addressed, no further concerns are outstanding. The article on Czech-language Wikipedia shows that sources for this content do exist, including a specialist book on the topic by Fojtík and Prošek, sustained coverage across various national media, plus all of the things mentioned in keep arguments above. Suggest nominator reads WP:BEFORE ahead of future frivolous nominations. Disagreeing with every !voter does not increase any reason for deletion. C679 16:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. It could use some copy-editing by a knowledgeable editor. Bearian (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per my first comment and everything stated above. Tymon. r   Do you have any questions?  00:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The bus service of a very major city is clearly a notable topic, which is all we're here to discuss at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Notability isn't inherited. Why have a standalone article on something which can easily be dealt with on the relevant city's article?Tvx1 22:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand/improve - an obviously GNG covered topic that may need improvement and sourcing DarjeelingTea (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources have been added. They seem enough. The article although needs improvement. Lourdes  10:05, 4 February 2017 (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.