Talk:West Yorkshire Metro

message: See my comments on merging this with the article on Metro (West Yorkshire) on the Metro talk page. mh. 20:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have removed the large list of bus services, as a violation of WP:NOT.  Obviously, some one put a lot of work into it (so I have kept a copy in my userspace here), but I do feel that their efforts were misguided.  --RFBailey (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bus services list 

message: Substituted at 18:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: I came across a redirect to this page, "TLC Travel", and would like some discussion on the subject.
*The page in question was merged to this page on 11 November 2019 citing lack of citations (notability issues were also suggested during the discussion).
**"TLC Travel" right before the merge
**Discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TLC Travel)
**"West Yorkshire Metro" right after the merge (Section "Bus service" is dedicated to TLC Travel)
*On 29 January 2020, the section of this page on TLC Travel was deleted. The following is the edit summary: "delete section, section is uncited except for its Companies House entry, if notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia should have stand alone article rather than be shoe-horned here, WY Metro have no ownership connection"
*As of 28 April 2020, the page "TLC Travel" remains as a redirect to this page even though the section on the company has been deleted. (TLC Travel pops up only once in the article now, in the list of 'My bus' school bus contractors (with a link to the redirect, which is another problem in itself).)
The situation with the redirect should be attended to, as leading people who wants to know about "TLC Travel" here would cause confusion. Two solutions are possible (as far as I can think of).
*Resurrect the "TLC Travel" article
**"if notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia should have stand alone article rather than be shoe-horned here, WY Metro have no ownership connection"--from edit summary on 29 January 2020
*Delete the "TLC Travel" page
**It would save the confusion. Although, the down side would be that it won't be possible to revert it, not easily at least.
I don't have any strong feelings on this, but I am leaning towards resurrection. I don't think the merger fixed anything unless notability was an issue (which I disagree with on grounds that it is a bus company with regular routes (it's not super small either)) (even if it was, it's doubtful that was the appropriate solution) as the lack of citations continued, so I suggest reversing the merger. As for the lack of citations, I feel that that by itself is weak as a reason for deletion (in conbination with others, maybe), and even in the discussion deletion wasn't chosen was it?--YTRK (talk) 11:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree with you YTRK, I couldn't quite understand the point of merging which explains my last comment on that AFD, Being an inclusionist I'd rather this be resurrected instead of deleted, The article would need adequat sourcing tho otherwise it'll probably be sent back to AFD, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 13:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: The page has been restored, with fewer content but also with references.--YTRK (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This has now been reverted back to a redirect to this page. Keith D (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the update. Have notified both users on their talk pages about this section.--YTRK (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

text: I don't think recreating an article that was voted on by multiple editors to merge or delete, which in either case effectively means "not keep", is the proper decision. I think the redirect is justified since there's a mention on the target page (specifically in the 'My bus' school bus services section). If I am wrong, then the proper venue for discussing the redirect is WP:RFD. Alternatively, retargeting the redirect to point at TLC (Latin American TV channel) may also be a valid option to consider. There are processes on Wikipedia that should be followed. Although I could not find a guideline about recreating articles that were deleted via AfD, I noticed a thumb rule suggesting that the article should not be recreated if it's substantially identical to the deleted version. In my opinion, I think the new version is. MorningThoughts (talk) 07:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  My bus I think is only a small part of the company's operations? I assume someone clicking the link would expect the destination to explain more about its normal bus operations and history. The result of the discussion was essentially to "keep but not as a separate article", so I think it's reasonable to go over the discussion following the deletion of the merged part. As for the new version, it had sufficient referencing so the exception for "pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies" would apply. (I can't however help noticing the wording is very similar to the version before the merge, which could be a copyright issue?) Thank you for your point about the venue, I'll consider moving the discussion there.--YTRK (talk) 12:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still in the revision history, so not a copyright issue unless it's copied to a different article or page name without stating where it is copied from (Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia). Peter James (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

text: In this case the only reason for deletion or merging was lack of references for notability, so "substantially identical" doesn't just mean content, it also means references. The redirected article only had one reference - Companies House - so the consensus no longer applies to an article with potentially significant new references. Peter James (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

text: The sources as currently provided are still far short of meeting WP:NCORP standards, so I've gone ahead and restored the redirect.  appears to be a paid article written by "routeone Team",  is a primary source, and  has no significant coverage of the subject, it's almost purely quotes. I wasn't able to access the offline source, but on its own it's not enough to establish notability even if we assume that it's flawless. signed, Rosguill talk 21:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  TLC Travel