Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capital City Green


 * 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. Consensus at this time supports retaining this article. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 08:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Capital City Green

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

There are adequate references to demonstrate that this bus route exists, and the information in the article is well-sourced, but there is no evidence that it meets the notability test of WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Some of the material in the article could be incorporated in an expanded List of bus routes in Cardiff, so a merger may be appropriate. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC) What we have is The reference added is to an article about the vehicles used as buses in Cardiff, and includes only a trivial mention of the Green Line. This ref would help establish establish the notability of Cardiff Bus (if that was in question), but it doesn't establish the notablity of this bus route. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC) As for the reference, it's explicitly about the vehicles used on Capital City Green routes, so if it shows notability for anything it's the route not the company. Although, since it's under 180 words, I guess you feel it doesn't qualify as significant coverage. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions.  — Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  — Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Articles for deletion/Capital City Red Welshleprechaun (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Where is the evidence that this bus route meets WP:GNG? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of third-party references which demonstrate sufficient coverage to pass the GNG. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 22:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily meets the WP:GNG. Jeni  ( talk ) 08:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Not as strong as Capital City Red but the sources do enough to pass WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Question have any of the "keep" !voters actually looked at those refs rather than just counting them?
 * 2 refs to primary sources: ref #5, ref #6
 * two refs to systems which predated the bus route: ref #2 "Cardiff's Electric Tramways", ref 3 "Cardiff Trolleybuses"
 * One ref to a book on streets which appears to mention the bus routes: ref #4 "Streets of Cardiff"
 * One ref (ref #1_, which consists when expanced of the grand total of 180 words
 * So where exactly is the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked at the sources, and felt that they were enough to pass WP:GNG. Ref #1 is almost enough by itself, but the two references for the preceding system show that the route's history is significant enough to be worthy of note too. Even assuming that ref #4 doesn't provide significant coverage, there's enough there to justify keeping the article. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 180 words is "significant coverage"??? That's not much more text than is found on a bus ticket.-- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Show me an official definition of "significant coverage" that limits it to over 180 words. A lot of newspaper or magazine articles are under 180 words, but nonetheless amount to dignificant coverage. I'd love to see a 180-word bus ticket though! Alzarian16 (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't want to be rude, but I think a commonsense definition of "significant" paces it well over 180 words. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Some complete articles such as Martin Aslund have fewer than 180 words, but I've yet to see a policy to remove them. But just to keep you happy, I've added an extra source. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The length of the wikipedia article is irrelevant to the notability of the topic.
 * If we can't find 180 words to write about a topic then how can it have had significant coverage according to your definition?
 * Notability is a property of the topic, not of the wikipedia article. Notability depends on the extent of coverage in reliable sources, but per WP:V, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so it cannot be used in assessing notability. An article may be only 180 words long because that is all there is to say on the topic, but it may be that long just because it has been vandalised or because nobody has yet got around to using the sources that exist.
 * Back this this particular source: it is not as you claim "explicitly about the vehicles used on Capital City Green routes". It is about 15 new vehicles purchased by the company, to be used to a variety of routes in the city; only 6 of them are to be used on the Green Line, which is not even mentioned until the final sentence of the article. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The nomination tells us that article is well-sourced and so merger of the contents is appropriate. Merger is not achieved by deletion and so this forum is not appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep well sourced; easily meets notability guidelines. Dew Kane (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The good list of references clearly shows it meets any notability guidelines. Editor5807speak 18:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'd like to request a speedy keep and close to this discussion as there is a unanimous agreement to keep the article. Thanks  Welsh leprechaun  14:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, there isn't unanimous agreement. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is. No other editor that has commented here has objected. They have all said keep. Welsh leprechaun  15:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No other is is not unanimous. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? This is being unnecessarily stubborn now. Don't you know when you've been beaten? Please do us all a favour and cooperate.  Welsh leprechaun  16:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't care whether there are ten people saying that a 180-word article is "significant coverage", or ten thousand of people saying the same thing; I'd need some evidence or reason to change my mind, not the rather threatening language of "don't you know when you've been beaten?". This discussion is not a head-counting exercise, it's suppose to be a reasoned discussion, and I'm puzzled why you are so keen to curtail it avoid that. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Other articles nominated:
 * Articles for deletion/London Buses route 183
 * Articles for deletion/London Buses route 231
 * Articles for deletion/London Buses route 237
 * Articles for deletion/London Buses route 331
 * Articles for deletion/London Buses route 372
 * Articles for deletion/London Buses route 42
 * Articles for deletion/London Buses route 68
 * Articles for deletion/London Buses route 71
 * Articles for deletion/London Buses route 73
 * Articles for deletion/London Buses route 74
 * Articles for deletion/London Buses route 75
 * Articles for deletion/London Buses route 77
 * Articles for deletion/London Buses route E8
 * Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus route 28
 * Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus route 33
 * Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus route 7
 * Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus routes 51, X51 and 951A
 * Articles for deletion/Capital City Green
 * Articles for deletion/London Buses route 68
 * Articles for deletion/London Buses route 77
 * Okip  15:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * strong keep per above. Extremely well referenced article. Okip   15:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And where exactly is the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", per WP:GNG? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment At least five reliable sources used as references that are completely independent. Well referenced in my opinion. Editor5807speak 18:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See the list above. Five refs, but leave aside the primary sources and the refs on predecessor systems, and we have one ref, to a 180 word article. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The references in this one should prove notability to anyone. Everyone but the nominator seems to agree its notable.   D r e a m Focus  19:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * comment "Notability is not temporary: a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, but it does not need to have ongoing coverage." If the bus routes meet some criteria of being historic, unique or otherwise notable then keep otherwise merge to fit notability or delete. Remember that bus routes can change base on ridership needs, financial policy or simple politics. Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that notability is not temporary, and that the test here is not one of recent coverage. But this discussion has been disappointing, in that the "keep" !voters have mostly just counted footnotes rather than looking at what those references actually consist of. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't assume that no one has looked into the references and other information provided. Obviously, bus routes aren't going to get the same kind of coverage as movies would, no one saying hey, this is the best bus route I've ever been on, and here are a pile of awards I'm heaping on it.   D r e a m Focus  05:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You and most editors other editors have restricted yourselves to general comments which are entirely compatible with just counting the references. If you (or any other editor) have actually examined them, then please identify which references you believe establish notability, rather than just relying on vague generalities. So far as I can see the only ref relevant to WP:GNG is the 180-word article. Are you saying that you think that's sufficient? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Since Alzarian16 already had this discussion with you above, there is no need for anyone to repeat the same thing. Alzarian16's arguments are more convincing than any of yours.   D r e a m Focus  10:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG by the country mile as do most of these other bus route articles. Please remember this is an Encyclopedia not a bus route timetable. -  Gallo glass  17:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please remind us which part of this article is a bus route timetable? I certainly can't see one. Have you even looked at the article you are commenting on? I want to get from the university to the castle, I'm not seeing any part of this article which tells me what time my bus is coming? Jeni  ( talk ) 17:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I notice you didn't address my comment about it being unencylopedic. -  Gallo glass  19:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And yes I have looked at the article, as I do on all the AfD's I take part in. -  Gallo glass  19:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You never said it was not "unencyclopedic"; you made a vague comment asking us to remember "[Wikipedia] is an Encyclopedia not a bus route timetable", which is confusing to say the least because there's no bus timetable on this article. What is there is a description and history and background of the topic - much as you'd expect for any topic. Granted most bus routes are not notable, but some are. It can look foolish making comments like you just did.  Aiken   &#9835;   00:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I trust the closer of this discussion will review WP:INDISCRIMINATE as this does seem a prime example. -  Gallo glass  04:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That policy says nothing about buses. Please see WP:VAGUEWAVE. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a notable bus route.  Aiken   &#9835;   00:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. This is very trivial subject, of course, but that aside BHG makes a good point. Even a cursory review demonstrates the material here is not built up on any kind of WP:RS at all, and as such should not be constituted as an encyclopedic topic under our guidelines. I understand fully BHG's frustration, as a result, because she has noted with exceptional clarity the problems with the sourcing of this article and yet has been handed a fine dose of WP:OSTRICH & WP:ATA in return (as the above comment exemplifies). Eusebeus (talk) 09:16, 5 April 2010 (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.