Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greenie Bus (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 merge to University Circle#Public Transportation. There is a general consensus that the level of coverage of this subject in the sources would not support having a separate article. Most are in favour of a merge, and the sources offered during the discussion would be enough to cite some of the currently uncited material, so a merge seems to be a reasonable solution. However, I would like to remind the participants that all merged material should be cited to a reliable source, as it must comply with Wikipedia's verifiability policy. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 17:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greenie Bus

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

Non notable university shuttle buses. Not a municipal transit system, these are campus shuttle buses. Article has no absolutely no evidence of notability: no reliable sources as required by WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Here, the only citation is a link rotted shuttle bus schedule. Even after previous AFD, which was closed as no consensus due to lack of !votes, no one has been able to demonstrate the existence of reliable sources. GrapedApe (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - The first AfD was closed by an administrator less than 7 hours before the nom re-nominated this topic for AfD.[1] This is a blatant WP:POINT case. If the nom doesn't like the closing result of his AfD, he needs to take it to deletion review, not abuse the AfD process by an immediate re-nomination.--Oakshade (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- From the closure of the last AfD: "This discussion did not attract a lot of attention, and I feel that most of the arguments were fairly weak. Therefore, I don't think that it would be disruptive to renominate the article." - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That was an improper assessment. The admin should've added more time to the AfD if they feel it "didn't attract a lot of attention."--Oakshade (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then you should address your concerns to the closing admin. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - In retrospect, relisting would have been a better option than the one I chose, but, I don't see why we should close this. I think building a consensus is what's important, so this discussion seems to be a good thing. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Mark Arsten's close was fine.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to University Circle#Public Transportation, the area served. Not notable enough for a stand-alone article but worth mentioning in the area's. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge and redirect (see below)'. There are no reliable sources cited, and reviewing several pages of Google search results for "greenie bus" yields almost nothing that did not originate with this Wikipedia article. As with User:Life of Riley and User:Whpq in the last AfD discussion, I could not find any potential source of citations. It's not that the article is simply new and unfinished -- the problem is that it is impossible for this article to be adequately improved, because coverage in reliable sources is either extremely limited or non-existent. Not sufficiently notable as a subject. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 16:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that I just spent twenty minutes searching hard for mentions of "Greenie Bus" in third-party sources, and came up totally empty. EBSCOhost, Google Scholar, Google Books, Google News, and Amazon all came up with no results. Yes, Google Books does have some books with mention of "Greenie Bus," but I can confirm that those books are just compilations of Wikipedia articles that include this article. Without citations, there is no verifiable information to merge into the University Circle article. As such, I'm changing my opinion to say that this article should clearly be deleted. The only argument that can be made against deletion, imo, is for an editor to find at least one reliable source to cite. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 18:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Searches for <"Case Western" "Greenie"> do turn up assorted University-based sources using the name, e.g.[2][3][4][5][6][7] Not saying this proves notability for a separate article, just that the system does appear to be called by that name. I lean toward the merge and redirect proposed above.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With the introduction of those citations, I can support merge and redirect as well. They don't measure up as sources to justify a full article, but they do allow for some information to be kept in the merge. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 22:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 21:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Described in more than one book" does not equal notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. Note also that notability is just a vague guideline which is trumped by our editing policy. Warden (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't count for notability if the books are compilations of Wikipedia articles.--GrapedApe (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not refer to books of that kind. DanielKlotz's searches above seem too specific, looking for an exact phrase. Warden (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All book references are either Wikipedia reprints or mere mentions in books about Case Western. WP:GNG requires "significant coverage" which means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. That standard is far from satisfied here.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the books discusses the livery of this service, which seems to be a particular feature of interest. My !vote stands. Warden (talk) 06:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which one is it? And even assuming that's a viable source, WP:N requires multiple sources, so what are the other ones?--GrapedApe (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources are not required in WP:N. "Expected" doesn't mean "required."--Oakshade (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources" Generally plural nouns means >1.--GrapedApe (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's plural so as not to restrict the number of sources to one. Using the affectation of an "s" to contradict the applicable wording - "multiple sources are generally expected" - to falsely mean "required" is just a silly example of WP:GAME. --Oakshade (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oakshade, would yoube agreeable to a merge and redirect outcome of this discussion? How about you, GrapedApe? -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 19:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the verifiable content is preserved, this doesn't need a standalone article and can be merged. --Oakshade (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything worth keeping. I mean, what would we merge, the bus schedule? The rest is original research unsupported by sources. Out of 14 thread responses, we still have no indication as to which book/books Warden is referring to.--GrapedApe (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what merging is; merging the content of one article into another. The consensus here seems to be to merge in addition to redirect. --Oakshade (talk) 23:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and I was saying that there's nothing worth merging. Should we merge the bus schedule?--GrapedApe (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're against merging, then you seem outside of consensus. You can try to build a consensus for your preference. --Oakshade (talk) 00:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD is still open, so consensus is developing. The real question is why you're impervious to my expertly argued arguments. Tell us, right now, exactly which of Greenie Bus you would merge. What text there is 1) cited to a reliable source and 2) worth preserving?--GrapedApe (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible for one or two of the defending editors to make improvements to the article? I feel puzzled by the vehement arguments that the article could be significantly improved, while the article itself remains unimproved. I will have an easier time supporting keeping an article that has been improved than one that merely hypothetically could be improved. I made a good-faith attempt at finding citable sources so that I could contribute to that improvement effort myself. Thank you. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 10:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The tiresome badgering and disruption of this process does not encourage editing. It seems especially obnoxious when you look at the sort of articles which the nominator creates himself: Ebenezer Covered Bridge, Jagoff, Pet House, Shorty's_Lunch. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Warden (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per above. While some sources verifying the basic information about the bus system exists, they are extremely limited in scope, being almost entirely comprised of small local coverage, mostly existing in actual University publications. Thus, a merge to the University Circle article seems like the most appropriate option. Rorshacma (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect according to Bushranger's suggestion above. This is an unimportant shuttle bus service of absolutely no interest outside the University Circle area of Cleveland, and really ought to be deleted, but I will support the consensus to merge. This is certainly not worth a separate article in Wikipedia. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect -I don't see what information that can be merged. -- Whpq (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:SK#1, WP:SK#2b, WP:SK#2c, with prejudice against speedy renomination.

SK1 The...nomination...fails to advance an argument for deletion

SK2 The nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption... For example:

...

b nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption...

c making nominations of the same article with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected in a recently closed deletion discussion

Unscintillating (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Frankly, this is nonsense.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Frankly" means "in truth". "nonsense" means, "words or language having no meaning or conveying no intelligible ideas". The text claimed to be "nonsense" is from one of our deletion guidelines, and a deletion guideline is "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow..." Unscintillating (talk) 01:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Adding attribution to m-w.com. Unscintillating (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:Deletion policy,
*Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome.
Our deletion policy is "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." Unscintillating (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect No evidence of notability and fails WP:NOTDIR.--Charles (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.