Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unst Bus Shelter


 * 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   speedy keep. Per WP:SNOW and withdraw of nomination (non-admin closure)  D u s t i *poke* 22:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Unst Bus Shelter

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unreferenced article about a bus shelter. Bus shelters are in general extremely non-notable. This one appears to be a little unusual but even so there are no references to confer notability. There is already coverage at Unst but author reverted a redirect to that article. Delete per WP:N and WP:V. I42 (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I've added four refs (two from national newspapers in the UK and one from Canada). Can find more if needed, probably. Peridon (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per new refs. ~ Gosox ( 55 )( 55 ) 18:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The vast majority of bus shelters are non-notable. This is among the small minority that are notable, based on the references added to the article. Cullen328 (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Nominated for AfD within 30 minutes of article creation and it seems WP:BEFORE was not adhered to.  The refs indicated passing WP:N.  The "per WP:V" is curious as a topic only "fails" WP:V if it is unverifiable, which is not the case with this topic.--Oakshade (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On the contrary. Look again at the article history and see WP:BEFORE point number 4: "If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider turning the page into a useful redirect to an existing article". I redirected to Unst where the topic is already covered in greater detail; I did not - and still do not - see any point in fragmenting that article. However, the author of this article contested the redirect, and only then was the AfD raised. WP:V is appropriately cited: the article contained no references. See especially WP:BURDEN within WP:V. Note that despite WP:BURDEN I did Google for some suitable sources but none were easily found (the BBC page which is referenced on the page now did turn up but it is a blog; it is not suitable for use as a reference and should be removed again). I42 (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:BEFORE also states in point number 9: "Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist." It took me less than two seconds of a g-news archives search to find several reliable sources establishing notability -  and including that BBC article you claimed wasn't "easily found"   You've completely misunderstood the basic concept of WP:V.  It's about verifying the content, not notability, of articles as opposed to using original research.  We have WP:N to address notability.  A topic doesn't "fail" WP:V if there are currently no references but if the topic is unverifiable in that it's impossible for reliable sources on the topic to exist, ie a bus shelter on Mars and a Wikipedia editor claiming he's a Martian writes an article about it.  A famous bus shelter in the Shetlands is easily verifiable.  You jumped the gun on this one. --Oakshade (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have considered responding, but we are straying away from the subject in hand and towards personal comment. This is not the place. Let's draw a line under it and agree to disagree; it's fairly clear which way this AfD is headed anyway. I42 (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to WikiProject Scottish Islands.  -- Ben   Mac  Dui  09:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Was going to go straight for my delete button, but this bus shelter has defied expectations and been written about. Might be a case for a merger to Unst, but that's firmly in the realms of a merger discussion rather than a deletion debate. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per WP:SK 2.4 "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". The nomination tells us that a redirect was preferred but redirects are a matter of ordinary editing not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't count that as a speedy keep. My reading of 2.4 is that this was for cases where there's a dispute over what's in the article and the party who doesn't get their way going to AfD, rather than a disagreement over whether there should be an article at all. I can't see why dispute resolution would be a more appropriate course of action in this case, and it's illogical to insist on a completely different forum just because someone suggested leaving a redirect where the article was. Yes, keep is the correct outcome here, but this was clearly an AfD debate where participants were entitled to their opinions. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Cullen328. One of the most well-known Shetland eccentricities and hard to imagine anything like it would survive long anywhere on mainland Britain. Ben   Mac  Dui
 * Comment It is clear this is headed to keep and I am happy for someone to close it early per WP:SNOW. I remain surprised by the responses - perhaps the nomination was misunderstood: I proposed to delete the article because there is better coverage already at Unst; I did not propose to delete the subject entirely from Wikipedia. To me the subject seems intrinsically to be part of the Unst article: as noted above, its something peculiar to the area so it really belongs with it - and it's not something that is likely to form part of a series of such articles. Never-the-less I will go with consensus for a separate article and merge in the existing content from Unst, and replace the existing text with an internal link. I42 (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're not proposing deleting any of the material, it's better to do so through a merger discussion. (Sometimes an AfD is appropriate, but that's normally when the proposed merger would involve deleting most of the material, or when the destination article already has the information.) If you want input from beyond the article talk page, you can list the proposed merger at Proposed mergers. I noticed there's a proposal to introduce Articles for Merger, and that might be a better long-term solution for situations such as this one. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per new refs. They are from national newspapers. Arriva436talk/contribs 16:39, 2 January 2011 (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.