Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Peterborough (3rd 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   procedural close. with no prejudice against speedy renomination if the merged content isn't kept elsewhere. A merge discussion should probably take place on a destination article talk page. (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

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

List already included in List of bus routes in Cambridgeshire therefore not needed. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 08:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * As you've merged it, the page's history is needed for attribution, so unless List of bus routes in Cambridgeshire is also deleted at least a redirect would be needed, however maybe it should stay as a separate page as Peterborough and Cambridgeshire are separate local authorities for transport. Peter&#160;James (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - the rationale given isn't obvious here. As above, they are separate LAs so why merge the content from one into another and then put one up for deletion? Now, there are lots of reasons for potentially deleting lists if buses - they are generally unencyclopaedic, but for an editor to simply merge one into another and then go to AfD rather than through the merge or redirect process is procedurally dubious in my opinion. On those ground, without prejudice for deleting both articles in question based on notability, I oppose with an undoing of the edits to the list for Cambs at the same time. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley (what's up) 01:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)




 * Procedural Oppose per Blue Squre Thing. I would support undoing the merge and putting both articles up for deletion as they fail notability and What Wikipedia is not policies. They also look outdated and misleading.--Charles (talk) 10:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Procedural close. If the content has indeed been merged into List of bus routes in Peterborough then it is necessary to retain the page so that the attribution history of the edits is preserved; the page thus cannot be deleted. The page would ordinarily be redirected with proper linkage to and from the target article as described at Merge. No opinion on the merits of the merge but as it is evidently controversial, it should be undone and a merge discussion started to determine consensus as described at Merge. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:15, 25 February 2013 (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.