- 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 no consensus. Transwiki'ing or merging seem like reasonable solutions which should be explored. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- High bus number (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable jargon phrase. noq (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Agreed... might be suitable for Wiktionary. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have we stopped doing research at AFD whilst I've been busy? There are quite a lot of sources that deal in the concepts of software developers being hit by a bus. There are even sources that deal with the quite specific sub-topic of Guido van Rossum being hit by a bus. (See page 518 of ISBN 0596002815.) The August 2007 issue of CIO magazine has an article providing a case study of what happened when a project manager was metaphorically hit by a bus. Pages 95–96 of ISBN 0750658541 has a case study of what happened when a software developer was literally hit by a bus. The Encyclopedia of industrial and organizational psychology (ISBN 1412924707) deals with the subject of the impact upon projects of people being hit by a bus in its article on succession planning. It's fairly obvious that the subject of such eventualities is an encyclopaedic topic. It's in another encyclopaedia already. The only real question is choosing a good title, which this is not (as is discussed on the article's talk page), and making this a proper sub-topic of succession planning, which deals in more than just accidents. That does not involve the use of the deletion tool. It involves writing and — importantly — research. The latter is badly lacking in what both Noq and Doomsdayer520 wrote above. Please put more effort into research in future. Finding out what I mentioned here, which barely skims the surface of what is available to people who want to actually write, took less than 5 minutes. Uncle G (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Another article which touches on this topic is Key man insurance. Not allowing all members of a critical group such as a royal family or high command to travel together has also been used as a sensible precaution. We should bring these topics together rather than deleting any of them. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Succession planning. Death of a key worker is a problem in any business or organization, not just software development. Refs that a software developer was "metaphorically hit by a bus" and another was "literally hit by a bus" are not convincing evidence of notability for this neologism. No claim is made that busses are attracted to code warriors like tornadoes to trailer courts. Loss of the only person or persons who knows how to keep something operating is a general problem. More than a non-jargon title is needed to justify a standalone article about the problems of having a dead software developer. Edison (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:NEO. Just because a few books use it doesn't mean it passes NEO. "Widespread" acceptance is subjective and, in my view, it hasn't reached that. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning toward delete for the reasons stated by Niteshift36. However, I want to point out that if this is retained, it should be moved to something like Bus number (slang) or Bus number (business term). If the article establishes this term's notability at all, what it establishes is the notability of "bus number," not "high bus number" so limited. What's unfortunate is that the phrase "bus number" still generally means the route number of a public bus, so this article shouldn't simply be moved to Bus number, which doesn't currently exist. If it's deemed inappropriate to move it to Bus number (parenthetical) when there's no Bus number without parenthetical, then the latter should be created as a disambiguation between this term and "the route number of a public transport bus service." Glenfarclas (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Wiktionary. It reads like a dicdef in paragraph form. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 08:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki or rename - Seems to be a reasonable wiktionary article in this, or an article concerning bus numbers in general but there's definitely not enough here to warrant a high bus number stand-alone article. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Bus factor. This term is reasonably common in software development. Bus Number is sometimes called Truck Number. For those not familiar, c2.com is the original wiki. Tangurena (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Uncle G. A rename, of not a merge, is probably in order. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:24, 12 January 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.