Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus route 7 (2nd nomination)

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

West Midlands bus route 7

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus route 7
• Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus route 7 (2nd nomination)

West Midlands bus route 7 (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)

I originally nominated this for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham bus routes 2 & 3 however I had forgot to add the AFD templates to each AFD, I had hoped the original closer would reopen and save everyones time being wasted but it wasn't to be so here we are for another week!, Same rationale as the prev one - All non notable routes all fail GNG

• West Midlands bus route 19
• West Midlands bus route 28
• West Midlands bus routes 301 and 302
• West Midlands bus route 303
• West Midlands bus route 1 (Coventry)
• West Midlands bus route 2 (Coventry)
• West Midlands bus route 4 (Coventry)
• West Midlands bus route 11 (Coventry)
• West Midlands bus route 12 (Coventry)
• West Midlands bus routes 19, 19W and 19X (Coventry)
• West Midlands bus routes 23 and 23C (Coventry)
• West Midlands bus route 28

• West Midlands bus route 42 (Coventry)
• West Midlands bus routes 81, 81E and 81W (Coventry)
• National Express West Midlands route 82
• National Express West Midlands route 87
• West Midlands bus route 332 and 549
• West Midlands bus routes 337 & 338
• West Midlands bus routes 394 and 395
• West Midlands bus route 404
• West Midlands bus route 410
• West Midlands bus route 801 (Coventry)
• Greater Manchester bus route X50
• Greater Manchester bus route X41

–Davey2010^Talk 19:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• Pinging the prev AFD !voters - JMWt, Jeni, Class455, Charlesdrakew. –Davey2010^Talk 19:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• All templates have now been added - I apologize for wasting time for another week - I had asked for it to be reopened where I could then add the templates and even relist it myself[1] however it was declined. –Davey2010^Talk 19:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• Delete all - Per the last AfD. Class455 (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• The previous AfD had 5 keep !votes and closed as "No consensus".  Unscintillating (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• Unscintillating - When he says per the last AFD he means Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham bus routes 2 & 3 which technically is the last AFD as this AFD is exactly same as that one, This is precisely why I wanted the other AFD reopened so it wouldn't be one big clusterfuck but anyway I hope I've cleared that up, Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 00:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• Delete all. Looks like most of these have not been updated in years and never showed any sources to meet WP:GNG.Charles (talk) 09:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• I'm wondering how often articles must be updated to avoid being deleted.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
• If "most" "never showed any sources to meet WP:GNG", it may be that some do.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• Not that I can see.Charles (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• Delete all - I can't see any reason why these bus routes can be considered notable. Wikipedia is not a bus timetable. JMWt (talk) 09:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• Without evidence of a problem that needs AfD, WP:AGF applies.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• Delete, again shame common sense wasn't applied when closing the last one! Jeni ^(talk) 13:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• Last AfD had five keep !votes and closed at "No consensus".  Unscintillating (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• See reply above. –Davey2010^Talk 00:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• Delete—per all of my past !votes noting that other than in exceptional cases, bus routes are typically too ephemeral to warrant articles. Imzadi 1979 → 14:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• So WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS?  Please cite references for the standard for emphera.  This AfD is for specific articles, so an argument for "typical" articles may or may not apply.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• Delete majority but I can see that West Midlands bus route 8 has a connection with a musical created around that specific route, with appropriate source. I also noted Davey2010 you have appeared to have duplicated a number of entries above, probably by mistake. Nordic Nightfury 15:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• Ah I hadn't spotted so have removed 8, I've also removed the duplicates, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Davey2010, I have removed another duplicate entry you missed. Nordic Nightfury 08:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

What a fun nomination this is turning out to be lol, Thanks again :), –Davey2010^Talk 12:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

At best I'd say redirect to Birmingham Repertory Theatre as the musical doesn't have an article. Mkdw^talk 01:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• Delete under WP:NOTTRAVEL. Some of this information could be transwikied to Wikivoyage. Mkdw^talk 01:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• Travel guide doesn't seem to apply.  Here is the text for WP:NOTTRAVEL

Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook. Wikipedia articles should not read like: . . . 2.  Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of the "best" restaurants, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc. While travel guides for a city will often mention distant attractions, a Wikipedia article for a city should only list those that are actually in the city. If you do wish to help write a travel guide, your contributions would be welcome at our sister project, Wikivoyage.

Unscintillating (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment  Previous AfDs were not correctly documented in the nomination:

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus route 7
• Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus route 7 (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus route 28
• Articles for deletion/Birmingham bus routes 2 & 3

• Question to nominator.  Are you aware that there have been no Find sources templates for most of the articles listed here for the last seven days?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• You don't need to add the "find sources template" to every single one here, It shouldn't take a genius to search for instance "West Midlands bus route 303", I've been doing bulks since 2013/2014 and have never once added the "find sources" template to each one and in the 4 years of being here it's never once been suggested so they don't need to be added. Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 02:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• Which part of WP:INDISCRIMINATE?  Unscintillating (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• Unscintillating - I'm not having a go but is there any reason as to why you've replied to every single person here?, It might be better if you actually !voted instead of replying and nitpicking over everyones comments here, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 15:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• User:Davey2010, !votes here are scattered across many different variations of WP:ATA, where the "just pointing to a policy" varies between WP:DEL8 and WP:DEL14.  The nominator has characterized this as a "fun" AfD.  Do you agree that every !vote in this discussion is of a form from WP:ATA?  Do you think that closers should vote-count arguments from WP:ATA in disregard of the WP:Guide to deletion that says, "Always explain your reasoning."?  The section on "Rough concensus" from WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators states,

Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.

Or maybe this is Wikipedia today, where blood-letting of content contributions is now so debased that process is an inconvenience?  Unscintillating (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• Back to the point at hand, which of the four points of WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies? 

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information . . . To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles should not be: Summary-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats works of fiction and art in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary. For more information regarding plot summaries, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) § Plot summaries. Similarly, articles on works of non-fiction, including documentaries, research books and papers, religious texts, and the like, should contain more than a recap or summary of the works' contents. Such articles should be expanded to have broader coverage. Lyrics databases. An article about a song should provide information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, and so on. Quotations from a song should be kept to a reasonable length relative to the rest of the article, and used to facilitate discussion, or to illustrate the style; the full text can be put on Wikisource and linked to from the article. Most song lyrics published after 1922 are protected by copyright; any quotation of them must be kept to a minimum, and used for direct commentary or to illustrate some aspect of style. Never link to the lyrics of copyrighted songs unless the linked-to site clearly has the right to distribute the work. See Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources for full discussion. Excessive listings of statistics. Any statistics should be accompanied by explanatory text providing context. Long recitations of statistics reduce readability and may be confusing. Where large quantities of statistics are appropriate (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012) consider placing them in tables to enhance readability; where large quantities are not appropriate (e.g. the main article United States presidential election, 2012) omit excess statistics and summarize. Exhaustive logs of software updates. Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources in articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article. Common sense must be applied with regard to the level of detail to be included.

Unscintillating (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not arguing over it but I simply thought !voting was far more productive than nitpicking over everyones comments but hey if you'd prefer to nitpick over the slightest of things then knock yourself out. –Davey2010^Talk 18:33, 20 November 2016 (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.