Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Capital City Green

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Okip (talk | contribs) at 15:44, 3 April 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:44, 3 April 2010 by Okip (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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 Non-admin close, snowball keep, I voted! on this article just now, if that is a problem, revert this closure. Okip 15:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Capital City Green

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are adequate references to demonstrate that this bus route exists, and the information in the article is well-sourced, but there is no evidence that it meets the notability test of WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Some of the material in the article could be incorporated in an expanded List of bus routes in Cardiff, so a merger may be appropriate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep - per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Capital City Red Welshleprechaun (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Reply. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Where is the evidence that this bus route meets WP:GNG? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep Plenty of third-party references which demonstrate sufficient coverage to pass the GNG. TheCatalyst31 22:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep Easily meets the WP:GNG. Jeni 08:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep Not as strong as Capital City Red but the sources do enough to pass WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Question have any of the "keep" !voters actually looked at those refs rather than just counting them?
What we have is
1. 2 refs to primary sources: ref #5, ref #6
2. two refs to systems which predated the bus route: ref #2 "Cardiff's Electric Tramways", ref 3 "Cardiff Trolleybuses"
3. One ref to a book on streets which appears to mention the bus routes: ref #4 "Streets of Cardiff"
4. One ref (ref #1_, which consists when expanced of the grand total of 180 words
So where exactly is the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I looked at the sources, and felt that they were enough to pass WP:GNG. Ref #1 is almost enough by itself, but the two references for the preceding system show that the route's history is significant enough to be worthy of note too. Even assuming that ref #4 doesn't provide significant coverage, there's enough there to justify keeping the article. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
180 words is "significant coverage"??? That's not much more text than is found on a bus ticket.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Show me an official definition of "significant coverage" that limits it to over 180 words. A lot of newspaper or magazine articles are under 180 words, but nonetheless amount to dignificant coverage. I'd love to see a 180-word bus ticket though! Alzarian16 (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Don't want to be rude, but I think a commonsense definition of "significant" paces it well over 180 words. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Some complete articles such as Martin Aslund have fewer than 180 words, but I've yet to see a policy to remove them. But just to keep you happy, I've added an extra source. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
The length of the wikipedia article is irrelevant to the notability of the topic.
The reference added is to an article about the vehicles used as buses in Cardiff, and includes only a trivial mention of the Green Line. This ref would help establish establish the notability of Cardiff Bus (if that was in question), but it doesn't establish the notablity of this bus route. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
If we can't find 180 words to write about a topic then how can it have had significant coverage according to your definition?
As for the reference, it's explicitly about the vehicles used on Capital City Green routes, so if it shows notability for anything it's the route not the company. Although, since it's under 180 words, I guess you feel it doesn't qualify as significant coverage. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Notability is a property of the topic, not of the wikipedia article. Notability depends on the extent of coverage in reliable sources, but per WP:V, Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source, so it cannot be used in assessing notability. An article may be only 180 words long because that is all there is to say on the topic, but it may be that long just because it has been vandalised or because nobody has yet got around to using the sources that exist.

Back this this particular source: it is not as you claim "explicitly about the vehicles used on Capital City Green routes". It is about 15 new vehicles purchased by the company, to be used to a variety of routes in the city; only 6 of them are to be used on the Green Line, which is not even mentioned until the final sentence of the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Speedy Keep The nomination tells us that article is well-sourced and so merger of the contents is appropriate. Merger is not achieved by deletion and so this forum is not appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep well sourced; easily meets notability guidelines. Dew Kane (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep The good list of references clearly shows it meets any notability guidelines. Editor5807 18:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment - I'd like to request a speedy keep and close to this discussion as there is a unanimous agreement to keep the article. Thanks Welshleprechaun 14:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
No, there isn't unanimous agreement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is. No other editor that has commented here has objected. They have all said keep.Welshleprechaun 15:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Other articles nominated:

Okip 15:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

strong keep per above. Extremely well referenced article. Okip 15:42, 3 April 2010 (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.