Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travelcard Zone 7

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 15:46, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Travelcard Zone 7
Travelcard Zone 7 is a fictional Travelcard zone - it's not even that, as it doesn't appear in any noteworthy works of fiction. Something purely made up by the author. Delete. Qwghlm 16:40, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Further to the above, it's worth noting no pages link to it and there are no relevant Google results for it, . Qwghlm 16:48, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Presently on WP:VFU. Radiant_* 09:01, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I voted to undelete this, but I cannot find at all where this fictional card should be. Not notable as far as I can see. Sjakkalle 11:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC
 * Delete pending verification. I lived in London for 3 years in the 90s and have been back several times, and I never heard this expression being used. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, of course, but needs substantiation. Closest I could Google for was a proposal tucked in a 2002 government report for an actual Zone 7 here, at page 29, points 7.12 to 7.13 but that doesn't seem to have gotten anywhere. --khaosworks 14:52, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not widely used - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  15:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I live in London, I've never heard this term. Even if it exists, its little more than a dictionary deinifnition unless citations of its use can be made. --TimPope 18:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I added the claimed joke to Travelcard Zone 6, which seemed to flow better. Make into a redirect to there, and then argue the existence/notability of the joke in its talk page. Septentrionalis 18:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Problem is, noting the joke has the same problems about verifiability - it may be a hoax, and that means the inclusion of it in the Zone 6 article is erroneous. It should not go in anywhere unless it can be verified. --khaosworks 18:53, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * It should go there, and the argument about verification should take place there; thus probably providing consensus for the deletion. Septentrionalis 21:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * My point is merely this: it should not be included as fact in an article until we can show it's factual, i.e. after the argument about verification. Otherwise we're putting in misleading and inaccurate information in an article. --khaosworks 03:59, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Redirect without a merge to Travelcard Zones A-D. --SPUI (talk) 03:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: If consensus is that it's real, I would suggest merging with Travelcard or Travelcard and redirecting appropriately.
 * Keep It's relevent and used widely.
 * Really? Can you show us a cite? --khaosworks 22:41, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've vaguely heard of the expression before. Do not merge as it is a different concept to Zones A-D altogether. JuntungWu 08:00, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, until there is some evidence that anyone uses the terms. Just claiming that it's used by Londoners and non-Londoners alike, even though it's fictional, doesn't do it without supporting documentation.  RickK 22:11, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.