Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/901 (PTV Bus)


 * 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 redirect to SmartBus. The consensus of this AFD is to redirect this article. Do not undo this redirection. You can, if you want, develop an article in Draft space and submit it for review to AFC. Liz Read! Talk! 03:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

901 (PTV Bus)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This bus route is not the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. Redirect to Smart Bus was reverted by article creator with no improvements to show the route is notable. Whpq (talk) 03:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

''Note: Dan arndt has created a second deletion discussion for this article, at Articles for deletion/901 (PTV Bus) (2nd nomination). I am copying his comment to this discussion, and I shall then delete that duplicate AfD page.'' JBW (talk) 10:13, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note 2:I created a second deletion discussion only because the article's creator blanked this AfD discussion and removed the header from the article, as a result I was unaware that this AfD existed. Dan arndt (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Smart Bus. Article fails WP:GNG, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. A bus timetable is not an acceptable source. Department of Transport (Victoria) and Kinetic Melbourne are both primary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. Dan arndt (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I have already stated to you the following on Articles for deletion/903 (PTV Bus). A bus timetable is a reliable and acceptable source for determing what stops the bus route serves, to back it up for there were two sources for this a primary source (PTV) and a secondary Source (Moovit) NotOrrio. I know one of the arguments to avoid using in deletion is to not mention other articles but I want to show that stop information used as a source for where the bus serves is the norm for wikipeida bus route pages for example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Buses_route_1&direction=next&oldid=983282445 uses the source https://tfl.gov.uk/bus/route/1 for the section current route.

NotOrrio (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment, a bus timetable is perfectly acceptable to use as a source for determing what stops a bus route has however they aren't reliable or acceptable sources to establish the bus routes notability. In respect to the London bus route you have referred to, it is notable because it demonstrates there is significant coverage, not mentions in passing, in multiple independent secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Redirect per nom. This is not independently notable, and no amount of bludgeoning, attempting to circumvent AfD, and deception by the article creator will change this. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect per nom. Just another run of the mill bus route that doesn't require special treatment with its own article. Ajf773 (talk) 08:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep As there is enough reliable sources to deem this article notable with primary sources backed up with secondary source. People contesting for deletion will continously suggest this article to be deleted regardless of whether there are enough reliable sources or not. Whpq has consistently made source assesments with minimal research to benefit his push to what he wants to do with the article, most deletion attempts are likely just a case of (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) (talk) 1:39, 30 October 2022 (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.