Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2023 May 9
2023 May 11 >

10 May 2023

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
London Buses route 969 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

Firstly, the nominator suggests that reference six, at the time of nomination this newspaper article, fails WP:NOTTIMETABLE. This is a complete misrepresentation of the source - NOTTIMETABLE redirects to an essay on railway stations and lines so is of no relevance here, and what does a newspaper article have to do with timetables?

Counting votes, we have one keep, two weak keeps, three redirects and two merges. While a merge or redirect outcome would be acceptable if we were merely counting votes, Timothy's redirect vote does not put forward any reasoning and CastJared's redirect vote is per Timothy. These votes should have been completely discounted. Thus we're left with the three keeps (two of them weak), one redirect, and two merges, one of which is a WP:PERX. Ajf773 suggests Sources are totally trivial mentions which is again misrepresenting a newspaper article entirely about the route.

While Star Mississippi suggested I start a new article on mobility routes in London and I am not opposed to this, I do not want to let sources be misrepresented in this way as it sets a dangerous precedent. Overturn to no consensus. Garuda3 ( talk) 16:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse If you want to play this game I could easily say the second keep should be discounted as a WP:VAGUEWAVE. What this discussion comes down to in the end is a dispute over whether sourcing is suitable or not, and enough of the participants, either explicitly or implicitly, said it wasn't and thus that position carried. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Votes need to be backed up by at least some sort of reasoning. We can't go by what people say "implicitly" as that's subjective. A vote with no reasoning counts for nothing. Garuda3 ( talk) 21:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Why not? Even if they give no further reasoning, it seems clear to me that if there's a lengthy discussion over source suitability, and then someone says the article should not be kept with no further explanation, it means they agreed that the sources are unsuitable. What else could it mean? * Pppery * it has begun... 21:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Per WP:JUSTAVOTE. This is not an argument for or against deletion at all, it's a vote. As Wikipedia:Articles for deletion states, "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments" Editors should put in the minimum amount of effort to explain why they feel Wikipedia would be better off without the article. Otherwise it's just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Garuda3 ( talk) 21:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    WP:AADD is an essay and its sections, though frequently cited as though they were a policy or guideline, are the opinion of a minority of editors and are not required to be followed. Stifle ( talk) 08:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Closer comment, Garuda3 and I discussed this and I support this DRV because while I believe I closed it correctly (see my comments there), happy to have review since we're all human. No fault with review, self endorse sounds like a bad legal command! Star Mississippi 02:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - Merge was a valid conclusion by the closer. It is also the conclusion I would have reached if I had been closing, but that is not important. It is not the conclusion that the appellant would have reached, but that is also not important. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Are you not concerned about the poor quality of the redirect votes? Garuda3 ( talk) 05:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    No. If I were to assess the quality of the Keep and Redirect !votes and everything else, I would be performing another close. I am assuming that the closer has assessed the quality of the !votes. I am not demanding that the closer reach the same conclusion via the same rationale as I would. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. (!voted weak keep in the AfD). The AfD could have been closed as no consensus as there was no clear consensus for any single one of the main AfD options of keep, delete, redirect and merge. The article would then have been kept by default.
However, a no consensus default to keep is an unfair outcome as keep was a minority call. The majority opinion was split between merge and redirect. An invitation was made to coalesce around merge which attracted a bit of support but not a majority.
My initial reaction to this DRV was to overturn to no consensus. However, on reflection my opinion is the close is valid. Rough consensus is an option when a clear consensus for a single action cannot be agreed upon. The redirect with article history kept is an appropriate compromise and a fair reflection of the discussion. Rupples ( talk) 05:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Though I would have !voted to keep in the circumstances, I am unable to conclude that the closure is incorrect and as such it must be endorsed. Stifle ( talk) 08:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - there was no basis to keep in the AFD. That it barely meets GNG (which seems stretching it) is a good basis to merge. And I really wonder if that was necessary, given that there only two runs a week. Good grief, there are taxis that are more frequent! Nfitz ( talk) 22:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    The frequency of the route is irrelevant to whether it has an article per GNG. Garuda3 ( talk) 22:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    I didn't use the frequency to endorse. I don't see see a problem with the decision. But why not instead create an article on the history of TFL mobility bus routes in London? I don't think the spirit of the discussion at AFD precludes that possibility; and then this article could be redirected there. It makes reusing the material easier in such an article than in the list of bus routes. Nfitz ( talk) 05:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Hello, I will do this when the AfD closes. My point was more regarding how editors have disregarded a properly good source. Reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT in my opinion Garuda3 ( talk) 07:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse, largely per Rupples. The majority was against keeping, even if they couldn't agree on what to do, so redirect is a reasonable close as per WP:BARTENDER. CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 21:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn to NC Sorry, but the redirect and deletion arguments are not policy-based. Or, IMO, even correct. An article solely on a topic cannot be a "trivial mention" of that topic--claims otherwise should require pretty high standards to be accepted and those just aren't found in this discussion. And we have three such articles (of which I have access to two). This meets factually meets the GNG and arguments that state otherwise without meaningful arguments should be discounted. Basically there were no guideline/policy-based arguments for redirecting or deleting and so the numeric superiority of those arguments should be discounted. Hobit ( talk) 22:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:ABC2 logo 2011.svg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)
File:ABC 4 Kids logo.png ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)
File:Flytvlogo.png ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)
File:ABC Kids channel logo.svg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

These sets of Australian Broadcasting Corporation-related files were deleted under CSD F7 on various dates because it broke the policies. It doesn't break the policies if the former logos are mentioned in references on the article. File:ABC2 logo 2011.svg will once again replace File:ABC2 logo.svg as that file I mentioned did show the proper logo for ABC2 from 3 April 2011 until sometime in 2016. That logo was used from 1 April 2011 to 4 December 2017, while the second file is just the 2014 variant of that logo. Also, File:ABC 4 Kids logo.png will once again show the 2011 logo of ABC Kids (then ABC 4 Kids). File:Flytvlogo.png will hopefully once again show the logo used for Fly TV, for its entire existence. File:ABC Kids channel logo.svg, will also hopefully show the 2015 logo of ABC Kids once again. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page) 08:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • This is yet another case where Wikipedia's poorly-thought-out fair use rules prevent good faith users from improving the encyclopaedia. Using those logos to write articles would harm absolutely nobody at all. But those are the rules, stupid as they are, and it's DRV's role to enforce them, so I suppose I'd weakly endorse.— S Marshall  T/ C 08:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Just want to echo S Marshall. The rules are (at best) poorly-thought-out. I have a lot harsher words for them. But they are the rules. Hobit ( talk) 21:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_May_10&oldid=1156211315"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2023 May 9
2023 May 11 >

10 May 2023

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
London Buses route 969 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

Firstly, the nominator suggests that reference six, at the time of nomination this newspaper article, fails WP:NOTTIMETABLE. This is a complete misrepresentation of the source - NOTTIMETABLE redirects to an essay on railway stations and lines so is of no relevance here, and what does a newspaper article have to do with timetables?

Counting votes, we have one keep, two weak keeps, three redirects and two merges. While a merge or redirect outcome would be acceptable if we were merely counting votes, Timothy's redirect vote does not put forward any reasoning and CastJared's redirect vote is per Timothy. These votes should have been completely discounted. Thus we're left with the three keeps (two of them weak), one redirect, and two merges, one of which is a WP:PERX. Ajf773 suggests Sources are totally trivial mentions which is again misrepresenting a newspaper article entirely about the route.

While Star Mississippi suggested I start a new article on mobility routes in London and I am not opposed to this, I do not want to let sources be misrepresented in this way as it sets a dangerous precedent. Overturn to no consensus. Garuda3 ( talk) 16:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse If you want to play this game I could easily say the second keep should be discounted as a WP:VAGUEWAVE. What this discussion comes down to in the end is a dispute over whether sourcing is suitable or not, and enough of the participants, either explicitly or implicitly, said it wasn't and thus that position carried. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Votes need to be backed up by at least some sort of reasoning. We can't go by what people say "implicitly" as that's subjective. A vote with no reasoning counts for nothing. Garuda3 ( talk) 21:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Why not? Even if they give no further reasoning, it seems clear to me that if there's a lengthy discussion over source suitability, and then someone says the article should not be kept with no further explanation, it means they agreed that the sources are unsuitable. What else could it mean? * Pppery * it has begun... 21:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Per WP:JUSTAVOTE. This is not an argument for or against deletion at all, it's a vote. As Wikipedia:Articles for deletion states, "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments" Editors should put in the minimum amount of effort to explain why they feel Wikipedia would be better off without the article. Otherwise it's just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Garuda3 ( talk) 21:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    WP:AADD is an essay and its sections, though frequently cited as though they were a policy or guideline, are the opinion of a minority of editors and are not required to be followed. Stifle ( talk) 08:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Closer comment, Garuda3 and I discussed this and I support this DRV because while I believe I closed it correctly (see my comments there), happy to have review since we're all human. No fault with review, self endorse sounds like a bad legal command! Star Mississippi 02:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - Merge was a valid conclusion by the closer. It is also the conclusion I would have reached if I had been closing, but that is not important. It is not the conclusion that the appellant would have reached, but that is also not important. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Are you not concerned about the poor quality of the redirect votes? Garuda3 ( talk) 05:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    No. If I were to assess the quality of the Keep and Redirect !votes and everything else, I would be performing another close. I am assuming that the closer has assessed the quality of the !votes. I am not demanding that the closer reach the same conclusion via the same rationale as I would. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. (!voted weak keep in the AfD). The AfD could have been closed as no consensus as there was no clear consensus for any single one of the main AfD options of keep, delete, redirect and merge. The article would then have been kept by default.
However, a no consensus default to keep is an unfair outcome as keep was a minority call. The majority opinion was split between merge and redirect. An invitation was made to coalesce around merge which attracted a bit of support but not a majority.
My initial reaction to this DRV was to overturn to no consensus. However, on reflection my opinion is the close is valid. Rough consensus is an option when a clear consensus for a single action cannot be agreed upon. The redirect with article history kept is an appropriate compromise and a fair reflection of the discussion. Rupples ( talk) 05:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Though I would have !voted to keep in the circumstances, I am unable to conclude that the closure is incorrect and as such it must be endorsed. Stifle ( talk) 08:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - there was no basis to keep in the AFD. That it barely meets GNG (which seems stretching it) is a good basis to merge. And I really wonder if that was necessary, given that there only two runs a week. Good grief, there are taxis that are more frequent! Nfitz ( talk) 22:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    The frequency of the route is irrelevant to whether it has an article per GNG. Garuda3 ( talk) 22:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    I didn't use the frequency to endorse. I don't see see a problem with the decision. But why not instead create an article on the history of TFL mobility bus routes in London? I don't think the spirit of the discussion at AFD precludes that possibility; and then this article could be redirected there. It makes reusing the material easier in such an article than in the list of bus routes. Nfitz ( talk) 05:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Hello, I will do this when the AfD closes. My point was more regarding how editors have disregarded a properly good source. Reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT in my opinion Garuda3 ( talk) 07:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse, largely per Rupples. The majority was against keeping, even if they couldn't agree on what to do, so redirect is a reasonable close as per WP:BARTENDER. CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 21:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn to NC Sorry, but the redirect and deletion arguments are not policy-based. Or, IMO, even correct. An article solely on a topic cannot be a "trivial mention" of that topic--claims otherwise should require pretty high standards to be accepted and those just aren't found in this discussion. And we have three such articles (of which I have access to two). This meets factually meets the GNG and arguments that state otherwise without meaningful arguments should be discounted. Basically there were no guideline/policy-based arguments for redirecting or deleting and so the numeric superiority of those arguments should be discounted. Hobit ( talk) 22:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:ABC2 logo 2011.svg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)
File:ABC 4 Kids logo.png ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)
File:Flytvlogo.png ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)
File:ABC Kids channel logo.svg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

These sets of Australian Broadcasting Corporation-related files were deleted under CSD F7 on various dates because it broke the policies. It doesn't break the policies if the former logos are mentioned in references on the article. File:ABC2 logo 2011.svg will once again replace File:ABC2 logo.svg as that file I mentioned did show the proper logo for ABC2 from 3 April 2011 until sometime in 2016. That logo was used from 1 April 2011 to 4 December 2017, while the second file is just the 2014 variant of that logo. Also, File:ABC 4 Kids logo.png will once again show the 2011 logo of ABC Kids (then ABC 4 Kids). File:Flytvlogo.png will hopefully once again show the logo used for Fly TV, for its entire existence. File:ABC Kids channel logo.svg, will also hopefully show the 2015 logo of ABC Kids once again. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page) 08:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • This is yet another case where Wikipedia's poorly-thought-out fair use rules prevent good faith users from improving the encyclopaedia. Using those logos to write articles would harm absolutely nobody at all. But those are the rules, stupid as they are, and it's DRV's role to enforce them, so I suppose I'd weakly endorse.— S Marshall  T/ C 08:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Just want to echo S Marshall. The rules are (at best) poorly-thought-out. I have a lot harsher words for them. But they are the rules. Hobit ( talk) 21:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_May_10&oldid=1156211315"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE