Arthur Mamou-Mani ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Request relist of this AFD that was closed as no consensus; perhaps the admin did not realize that one of two Keep !votes was from the SPA/COI creator of the article. The closing admin has not responded to a request for clarification. Vrac ( talk) 00:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion wasn't really an option here. There was no consensus to do so in the AfD and the sources in the article (including one solely about him and a number that discuss his work) would appear to meet the GNG, so there is no overriding BLP or related reason to force a delete. Hobit ( talk) 06:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - headcount is a bit small, there's perhaps an argument to overturn to keep given the relative unambiguity of meeting WP:N, but it's a difference without a distinction, so I don't see why you'd bother. Wily D 09:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, after three relists, you're really just wasting everyone's time asking for a fourth. Participation was only modest, but clearly you can't get a consensus to delete out of that discussion, and the admin can only work with what they're given. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 10:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC). reply
• I apologise to the OP as I forgot to respond to their request. I would, in any case, have suggested bringing the issue to DRV, as I don't really see what else I could do with this AfD. Black Kite (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. A delete outcome would not have been reasonable. Stifle ( talk) 16:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

List of bus routes in Singapore ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The closing admin seems to have given too little weight to policy based argument.

At the admin's talk page reversion was declined with the comment "There were arguments from the sources, and potential sources, in the keep camp, as well as them being in the majority, so yes, I did give due weight to policy based argument."

There were 5 !Votes to delete, nominator included. There were 5 !Votes to keep. There was 1 !Vote to keep/merge which seemed to argue for merging rather than keeping.

That is not much of a majority even before considering that two keep voters only gave vague reasoning when prompted to do so and one vaguely referred to reasons given above without specifying which. User:Notforlackofeffort has since been indefinitely blocked. All of those wanting to delete gave policy-based arguments but on the other side no evidence has been produced of how the subject of the list meets WP:GNG. The closest to a secondary source that has been suggested is a bus route guide which just reproduces primary source information without any analysis of the article subject. Reasons given for keeping consist mainly of "other stuff exists" together with irrelevant stuff about editors' other work.

Given the weakness of argument on the keep side of the discussion I believe there is a consensus to delete. Charles ( talk) 22:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and Delete - The nom's spot on - 3 of the Keep !votes were "per X" (which IMHO there was no weight to as none were expanded on that), the other by an indef'd editor who only based his !vote on making a point to the world, Personally I think there was more of a consensus to Delete than anything. – Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 03:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Weak endorse, start RfC I think the delete arguments were stronger, but the close was probably within admin discretion. The argument for WP:NOT I found to be pretty effectively countered by the fact we have, and keep, similar articles for other places. But for me, the key issue is a lack of independent sources. Now I'm nearly certain that there will be solid independent sources for this--I've read at least 5 articles discussing my much smaller city's bus routes in the last year due to a millage vote. I can't imagine a place this large wouldn't have similar sources--at least about certain routes or groups of routes. But the article doesn't have much in the way of independent sources and no one seemed to provide much of anything. FWIW, I would have endorsed a delete outcome too given that discussion.

Now, all that said, I think the right venue is an RfC on articles like this. IMO either these fall under WP:NOT or, for larger cities, we should have them. I'm nearly certain one could meet WP:N for basically any town or city with non-trivial bus service in the US, and I'd guess the same is true elsewhere. I get the sense that at least some of the delete !voters would prefer we delete them all and picked on this (surprisingly) weak one. Instead of doing that, let's discuss the issue and (hopefully) find consensus. Hobit ( talk) 06:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - both deletion arguments are obvious bunk - there's no original research (as least, that I can find, or that anyone identified). This isn't a directory (in particular, it's both not useful as a directory, and contains historical routes which a directory wouldn't). Balanced head count, policy entirely favours keep, should be a keep, but this is a content organisation issue, in which headcount should carry some weight, unless it can be shown to be fraudulent. Wily D 09:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, but relist, about the only argument worth a damn there is the one by User:slakr, but it's not enough to base a delete decision on. Otherwise, there wasn't much to either side's arguments that was strongly based in policy. It was reasonable for the admin to close given the poor quality of argument they were given to work with, but at the same time relisting may produce a more decisive result the second time around. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 10:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC). reply
• Overturn and delete. The closer failed to give appropriate weight to the various contributions, such as Andrew D who partially addressed the OR concerns but not the NOTDIR, and Nha Trang who raised the "other stuff exists" canard. Stifle ( talk) 10:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • It's true that there are a number of articles like this, some of which have made it through AfD. So I don't think it's a "an unfounded rumor or story" that they exist. Nor do I think it's a poor argument when it comes to WP:NOT. What is and isn't a directory is determined by the community. There is some sense of the community that this type of listing doesn't fall under WP:NOT which I think is quite relevant. WP:NOT is necessarily vague and previous precedents are helpful. Hobit ( talk) 17:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Yes similar articles do exist and many have also been deleted including those for large cities such as Manchester in England. There is no generic precedent for keeping or deleting. Charles ( talk) 19:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC) reply
    • I never said anything about "an unfounded rumour or story". Stifle ( talk) 16:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply
      • Ah, you used the word "canard" in a way I didn't recognize, so I looked it up. That's the definition most everywhere. I assumed you were indicating that "other stuff exists" in this case wasn't true. Sorry if I misunderstood. Hobit ( talk) 17:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC) reply