Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bustitution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Neil ム 09:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bustitution

Bustitution (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested PROD. Barely more than a dictionary definition, and has already been transwikied. Self-admitted (by the article) Neoglism. Unsourced, questionable notability. TexasAndroid 12:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as neologism per nom, and per the distinction drawn by Eleland below. —gorgan_almighty 12:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep It's been used in newspapers, especially in the UK. While WP:NEO generally discourages neologisms on here, if they're sufficiently covered in reliable sources then they can stay. Google news and Google archive news search get some hits, [1] and [2], and gets a good number of regular Google hits as well, especially in railway oriented websites, such as here and here. It's mentioned in a BBC article, and was used in Scottish parliament. I think these sources establish widespread usage of the term, but perhaps someone can dig up more in-depth coverage in reliable sources (which I'm fairly sure exists). Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 13:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge the examples mentioned are interesting, but they are not coverage of the term, they are simply examples of its use. An article along the lines of Replacement of rail transportation with busing or whatnot might be justified, but this article appears to be about the term rather than the practice. Eleland 14:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Eleland, you make a good point. A redirect to a page about the practice that 'bustitution' describes would be entirely appropriate. And it looks like the articles which merely attest to the term's usage are a solid start for an article on the practice, or a subheader under the 'bus' article. I'd be up for collaborating on such an article, and notifying related Wikiprojects.

Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 16:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NEO - lack of "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term" Corpx 16:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The citations just show that those who are against bus replacement have been successful in seeding the internet with a media-friendly neologism. MarkinBoston 17:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Yawn. Burntsauce 18:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to a non-neologism and keep the redirect. Or redirect if that article already exists. --NE2 19:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to Wiktionary and delete. Thin Arthur 08:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. It's a (bloated, rambly) dicdef, and we can confirm usage. —CComMack (t–c) 09:07, 31 August 2007 (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.