Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Kolkata (2nd nomination)


 * 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. SpinningSpark 00:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

List of bus routes in Kolkata
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Content fork of List of bus lines in Kolkata and overly detailed. The Banner talk 09:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  11:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  11:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 12:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Content forks are not resolved by deletion - please see WP:AFD, WP:REDUNDANTFORK, WP:BEFORE, WP:ATD, WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:SK. Andrew D. (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This nomination has nothing to do with clean up. The Banner talk 20:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  - Andrew doesn't have any reason to keep hence him just citing any random policy under the sun, All those cited are invalid and are of no relation to the AFD whatsoever. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)</S>
 * , please re-read Speedy keep. You're fond of participating in RfA and are perhaps thinking of running one day; you are completely off base here, unless you wish to say something untoward about the nominator, which I am sure you don't want to do., please keep it neutral: this is verging on a personal attack. Andrew is wrong but this is not the place, and those are not the right words, for setting him straight. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My understanding of the relevant policies and procedures seems quite accurate and so my position is unchanged. WP:CFORK states "If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article."  WP:SK states "fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging".  If others think there's something wrong with this logic, they should please explain their counter-arguments in detail. Andrew D. (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. You may think the nominator has a bad argument, but it's still an argument. And the plethora of "deletes" suggests that others think it's actually a decent argument. I think you should consider the tonal qualities of saying "speedy keep", which typically amount to something like "you're stupid", and this admin, for instance, takes what he considers to be misapplications of policy seriously. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The nominator has an excellent argument for merger but this is Articles for Deletion and so he should instead be following the process described in WP:CFORK and WP:MERGE. This is a simple procedural point and I fail to see the problem with its "tonal qualities".  Is Drmies suggesting that every time someone nominates something for speedy deletion, they are chanting "you're stupid" at the author?  Drmies should please explain the difference in tone. Andrew D. (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * - I believe everyone on here's entitled to an opinion (although this is becoming a rare thing on here these days!)... Anyway I don't see any personal attack in what I said (I apologize if you perhaps thought it was), Anyway to keep everyone happy I've struck it .... – Davey 2010 Talk 01:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that Andrew would just cite any random policy, that's just not fair. (I do agree that he's wrong, haha!) I appreciate your note and strike-through, User:Davey2010. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I honestly can't see any offence to it but if you or others saw it different then I sincerely apologize - You know me Doc I never try to offend anyone, You're welcome and I guess thanks for making me see sense :) – Davey 2010 Talk 01:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Vrac (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - The Wikipedia is not a travel guide. This never should have been created following AfD #1, as nothing has changed since then. Tarc (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as we're not a directory!, Bus operators provide a timetable and or map for a reason. – Davey 2010 Talk 18:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  Speedy Keep Merge Per Andrew D.  There are countless other bus systems documented on Wikipedia, I've written a few articles on them myself.  Why the prejudice toward the third largest metropolitan area in the second most populous country on earth?  Yeah, its important, particularly if you are one of the 14.5 million people in Kolkata.  Yes, it can be improved upon.  Most transit system articles can be improved upon but its a start and it deserves to be here equitable with the List of Chicago Transit Authority bus routes in the third largest metropolitan area in the (much smaller) United States. Trackinfo (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you read the nomination? <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 21:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I'm used to irrational nominations for deletion. A merger between these two articles is certainly in order.  That is a lot of detailed work someone will need to follow through on to make sure proper information is not lost in the process.  The grounds cited by the previous three delete "votes" are not reflective of the duplication of content between these two articles. Trackinfo (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Trackinfo, you also, please keep it neutral. "Prejudice" is already suggestive enough; irrational is not OK. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete and salt as recreation of deleted material (G4) - nothing has changed since my AFD nomination in September 2013 (WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL and no secondary sources) or since it was speedily deleted in May 2014 per G4. BencherliteTalk 23:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge (very selectively) and delete and salt title - unilateral over-turning of a previous AFD result, to create a copyvio article that shouldn't be split from article referenced above in the first place. The merger suggestion is a sensible one but any attempt to overturn AFD and recreate this split (again) should be subject to community consensus at WP:DRV.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 02:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Why do we waste the resources of Wikipedia to keep the bus routes of every city. This is absolute nonsense. Please delete. Athachil (talk) 06:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete we might write about a notable transit system itself but policy suggests we don't create lists of routes that change regularly. Legacypac (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, and please salt all the various titles this has been at. Presumably there's no bot-assisted talk page notice of the previous deletion discussion because it was re-created at a different title? If there'd been one, I'd have tagged this as G4 when I came to it to look at the copyvio.The Chicago one seems a candidate for deletion too, for all the WP:NOT reasons cited above. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete -Yes, Unecyclopedic. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  17:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a bus timetable. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  21:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOT.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  12:09, 20 January 2015 (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.