Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobility buses in London


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  23:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Mobility buses in London

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

For the most part, a WP:CFORK with and quick resurrection of recently redirected article London Buses route 969. The tiny intro is a premature and unjustified WP:SPINOFF of List of bus routes in London. Suggesting the deletion of Mobility buses in London and redirection of London Buses route 969, as agreed. Perhaps this time also locking the redirect. For the full background, read WP:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 969.gidonb (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. gidonb (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as G4. Entirely identical to the pre-redirect article save for a single sentence. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete and drop a Whale on Garuda3's talk page. This is a blatant policy violation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, I’m merely doing what was suggested when I contested the close. Garuda3 (talk) 07:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete as per others. Also salt both articles. This was a result of a particular user not getting their way in this AfD ... as we can see they tried to get the moderator to overturn the result, then went to the Deletion Review process where the close was endorsed. While there is justification for a Mobility buses in London article, and this was discussed in Articles for deletion/London Buses route 969, it needs to be done independently and ideally via approved for mainspace via the AfC process. Ajf773 (talk) 02:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Plus I argued for a partial merge and that suggestion was adopted by the closer, though outside the direct scope of the close itself. Would have been awesome if someone who wants to preserve transit material would use this "fixed route" to add some specific content for this bus in the list. Such content is already shared for many other buses but here the wheels never went round. gidonb (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep, I have merely followed what was suggested by the closer and others at the time by starting a new page on mobility bus routes in London. There is ample content here for a split given the sheer size of List of bus routes in London. Garuda3 (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If there's "ample content" why did you just copy-paste the redirected article? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * List of bus routes in London is already too long - it needs content splitting out not merged in. That’s what “ample content” is referring to. The new article is a start - you’re welcome to expand it if you wish. Garuda3 (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete (G4) per Ajf773 - A blatant disregard to the consensus both at the AFD and the DR. Imho given the level of disruption it should be salted but that's just my opinion. – Davey 2010 Talk 16:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete (G4) GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:JUSTAVOTE Garuda3 (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. G4 stands for Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion . Bold and large font is in the source. So nobody will miss it! gidonb (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I started a new page on a broader scope using the existing content. That isn’t recreating the same page. It was also what was advised by the closer at the time. Garuda3 (talk) 06:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make GoldenBootWizard276's opinion anything near to just a vote. You created a content fork of an article that had just been deleted. It is close enough to the original article for some participants in this discussion to consider it the same page. The proof that it is very close is that you next altered the redirect that had just been decided and reconfirmed by community consensus. This was a setup on your end to circumvent and disrespect the WP community immediately after your opinion had twice not been accepted. gidonb (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It is indeed very close, as all I was doing was following Star Mississippi’s advice to start a new page for mobility buses. Try assuming good faith. Garuda3 (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It may ultimately release you from a sanction, but it is weak to hide behind others when you circumvent community decisions. Meanhwile, please do not put unfounded reactions here like justavote, when opinions contain a rationale. It again communicates disrespect for the opinion of others. gidonb (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It may ultimately release you from a sanction threatening sanctions isn’t very friendly - if you have a problem then raise it.
 * As for JUSTAVOTE, the editor was copying others and gave no rationale as to why the guideline they are referring to applies. Garuda3 (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not threatening you with sanctions. Exactly the opposite: I am asessing that you might get away with this. It doesn't make your behavior right. GoldenBootWizard276's opinion contains a rationale (G4) that makes perfect sense based on your own statement It is indeed very close. From now on, please give others more space to express their opinions and adhere to the THIRD community decision on this matter, whatever it may be! gidonb (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Restore AfD outcome i.e. Delete this and restore the redirect to London Bus Routes 969 as suggested in the nomination — as it was how the previous AfD was closed, and validated in the DRV. Bit naughty to recreate the article with no meaningful change. Don't agree with salting Mobility buses in London as there hasn't been repeated re-creation just the one (WP:SALT) and in the AfD it was suggested as a potentially valid topic for Wikipedia. Rupples (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. The person who loves reading (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2023 (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.