Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capital City Red


 * 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 per consensus and the absence of calls for deletion beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Capital City Red

 * – ( 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) 10:01, 29 March 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: This is a high profile route with many unrelated Google results. I find it hard to believe that this should be nominated when there exists an artcile for every London bus route, the majority of which have no references at all. Take London Buses route 167 as an example. Welshleprechaun (talk) 12:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Where is the evidence that this bus route meets WP:GNG? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It satisfies the conditions listed on WP:GNG which you admitted yourself - reliable sources. If you look at the references, you'll see they're independent. Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any evidence of significant coverage. What do you think meets that test? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep easily meets the GNG. This is actually one of the better bus route articles out there. Jeni  ( talk ) 23:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence please, not assertions. Where exactly is this coverage which meets GNG? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at the article, it's already there. Do you always hound users who disagree with you at AfD? It seems that way. Jeni  ( talk ) 00:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion, Jeni. Editors say things, and ask questions.  The aim of any consensus-building discussion is to seek reasons to make a decision, and asking for clarification is an important part of examining raesons. I'm sorry that you are confused about the difference between that and hounding
 * Anyway, I have indeed looked at the article, and I see nothing which amounts to substantial coverage of this route. You disagree: so which articles do you think meet the criteria? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has a number of sources (pretty much every third-party reference, really) which provide enough coverage to pass the GNG. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 21:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as the best-sourced bus route article I've seen to date. Significant coverage in four, arguably five reliable sources means that this passes WP:GNG by some margin. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep is well sourced. A well-sourced article that meets all other inclusion guidelines should never be deleted. Dew Kane (talk) 04:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well sourced. Notable use of articulated buses. Arriva436talk/contribs 16:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. A well written article with plenty of references to reliable sources. Personally I can't see the reason behind it being nominated for deletion in the first place. Editor5807speak 18:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Let's close this thing - 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  14:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply. There is not unanimity, and this is is a discussion, not a headcount. We need evidence of notability, rather than editors asserting it, no matter how many editors pile on. I don't see any evidence that this is a historic route, nor any claim to uniqueness (it's one of 3 branded routes in the city, not the only one), so what about the refs? Here's what we have in the current version of the article:
 * So where exactly in these refs is the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", per WP:GNG???? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:29, 4 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.