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The result was withdrawn. Has been userfied. AD 21:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is completely redundant to List of bus routes in Derbyshire, but the creator keeps on reverting the redirect. AD 14:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep semi-protect the article and redirect it to List of bus routes in Derbyshire Peter.C • talk 14:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I've been trying to do... AD 14:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So do it. An administrator exercising the deletion tool is entirely uninvolved in the process. This is Articles for deletion. This is not Big Hammer To Try To Win Edit Wars. If you want an ordinary editorial action, use the tools for it. If someone disagrees, discuss on the article talk pages. That's what they are there for. Don't bring things to Articles for deletion when deletion is not any part of what you want.Uncle G (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"That's what I've been trying to do...". This is clearly not worthy of an article and if the creator is unhappy with a redirect, it should be deleted. Please don't patronise me with bold text. 15:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
You need the boldface because the point clearly isn't sinking in. If the creator is unhappy with a redirect, then you two should talk on an article talk page. You have exactly zero edits to Talk:Important bus routes in Derbyshire. The deletion tool has nothing whatsoever to do with such resolution. AFD is not a big hammer for winning an edit dispute. Don't bring your edit disputes to Articles for deletion.Uncle G (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish, redirect is a perfectly acceptable outcome at AFD. Seriously, if I had posted there, do you honestly think anything productive would have happened, other than him and me disagreeing and getting nowhere? I think the article should be deleted, but I compromise and turn it into a reasonable redirect. The creator reverts, so now we are here. Do you have anything useful to say, Uncle G, or are you just here to lecture orders and patronise fellow editors? Because it seems the latter to me. AD 15:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of bus routes in Derbyshire, as who decides which routes are important? Stephenb(Talk) 14:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who's going to be searching for "Important bus routes in Derbyshire" who would be unable to find List of bus routes in Derbyshire without a redirect? --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We use redirects to serve as aids in searching - and adding "Important" to "Bus routes in Derbyshire" doesn't do that. Besides, searching for "Important bus routes in Derbyshire" would come up with the "List of bus routes in Derbyshire" article anyway. Since it's not a likely search term, we don't need to redirect. Also, echoing the points above - AFD is not "Requests for Redirect". UltraExactZZSaid~ Did 20:13, 27 December 2010 (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.