Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greenie Bus

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 no consensus. This discussion did not attract a lot of attention, and I feel that most of the arguments were fairly weak. Therefore, I don't feel that it would be disruptive to renominate the article. However, since the two keep voters seemed amenable to a merger, I think that would be a better immediate way forward. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Greenie Bus

Greenie Bus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Non-notable bus line in Cleveland. No evidence of notability at all. GrapedApe (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep  This should be handled with ordinary editing.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Nope. Please add multiple, third party reliable sources in order to demonstrate notability, as required by WP:GNG. RIght now, it has zero. --GrapedApe (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't start AfDs that can be resolved with ordinary editing.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Please feel free to do it yourself, if you believe that such sources exist, which they don't.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The topic has primary sources, and the nomination has made no argument that the edit history needs to be deleted.  The topic is already covered in the encyclopedia, is a plausible search term, and redirects are cheap; so there is no case to delete the redirect.  Nor has the nomination provided any evidence that the topic is not notable, the proof by assertion in the nomination is a logical fallacy.  Nor as per WP:N is it necessary that a notable topic have secondary sources cited in the article.  So what we know is that there is no case for deletion of either the edit history or the redirect; and we don't have any evidence one way or the other as to whether this topic satisfies wp:notability.  None of the remaining options need an AfD discussion.  Editors working on the article can either find sources and add them, or merge, or redirect, or all three.  No time of AfD volunteers or administrators is needed.  And on top of that it appears that the nominator's contributions put more effort into accosting one of the volunteers at the AfD, than into developing an adequate understanding of the topic before presenting it for discussion to the community (for example, there is no refutation of merger as per WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE).  And the only source listed in the article is a dead link.  I don't see how a nomination could assert that the topic has no evidence of notability while the only reference in the article remains unmarked as a dead link.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That is a very avant garde view of what WP:GNG and about 9 years of solid project-wide consensus says. -GrapedApe (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Two more proofs by assertion.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we are all impressed that you took Intro to Logic. But, the burden of proof is on you and anyone !voting for keep to show that the article satisfies WP:GNG.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Ad hominem arguments are not a substitute for evidence, nor is a hypothesis about an editor's class schedule relevant to a current issue.  Dismissing the force of reason is unreasonable.  Using the editorial "we" is a logical fallacy that is an appeal to the emotion of the bandwagon effect.  WP:TPG says to comment on contributions, not contributors.  Two recent rulings from Arbcom equivalently affirm that contributions should comment on edits, not editors.  WP:BURDEN is a part of WP:V, nor does WP:BURDEN have a direct relation to WP:GNG.  Keep !votes have arguments other than WP:GNG.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

"Keep !votes" is an incorrect characterization, as there is only 1 !voter for keep, you, so far.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

But since I wasn't referring to the number of !votes in this discussion, a suggestion that I did is a misrepresentation.  As per our article, "A [straw man] is...an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position."  The antecedent argument, that keep !voters in this discussion must limit their arguments to "show that the article satisfies WP:GNG", remains without a basis in policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

A new logical fallacy is the [argumentum ad numerum] based on a !vote count.  After a week, there are no policy-citing arguments that explain why this topic should be deleted under our policies.  The only opinion after a week to have mentioned a policy opines to return the decision-making for this topic to editorial control.  Indeed, looking at what links here shows that deleting this topic would leave a swath of destruction in the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The point remains that there is no need for an AfD discussion here.  These issues, including the issue of non-deletion non-notability, can be handled with ordinary editing.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Then, prove your thesis and do it: fix the article to satisfy WP:GNG through ordinary editing..--GrapedApe (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

AfD is not cleanup.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

"AfD is not cleanup" is not an argument to !keep.--GrapedApe (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. This is a non-notable college campus shuttle bus service. Of no possible significance or importance outside of the area of University Circle in Cleveland, Ohio. For goodness' sake, are we going to start writing articles on local shuttle buses? •••Life of Riley (T–C) 21:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - I was unable to find any significant coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

---

• Comment  This is from a recently-closed AfD, and seems relevant,

  The result was speedy close. The article merger process for duplicate articles does not involve either AFD or the administrator deletion tool in any way or at any stage. Neither does turning an article into a redirect (or vice versa). This is a mis-use of AFD for something that ordinary editors can enact and discuss on talk pages without any need for administrator involvement or tools. AFD has quite enough traffic as it is, without wasting participant time and effort on things that don't even need a deletion tool at all and that editors can do for themselves. Also note that notability is not addressed solely with deletion nominations, and there are plenty of venues (such as appropriate WikiProjects) for seeking third opinions on disputed mergers without abusing AFD for that purpose. Uncle G (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

  Unscintillating (talk) 03:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • No, that's extraordinarily irrelevant to this discussion. Thanks anyway.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep The bus service is described in more than one book. The worst case is that we'd merge into a section of a larger article such as University_Circle#Public_Transportation. Deletion is therefore not appropriate. Warden (talk) 07:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • What books are those, because they're not referenced in the article.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2012 (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.