Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campaign for Better Transport (United Kingdom)


 * 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 keep. BD2412 T 23:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Campaign for Better Transport (United Kingdom)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm not convinced that it satisfies WP:ORG or WP:GNG. It relies heavily on the organisation's own website with only trivial mentions in secondary sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * BBC, Daily Telegraph, Times, official history of the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association look like reputable independent sources to me. BBC has a whole article about the organisation's internal affairs.  Rathfelder (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * can you give specific cites which could be said to provide "significant coverage" of the organisation, rather than just trivial mentions please. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4612556.stm is long and detailed and focused on the internal politics of the organisation.Rathfelder (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks, I saw that one cited in the article, I thought it was more about Michael Palin, with just a minimum and incidental coverage of CBT's predecessor organisation.
 * I think we'll need more than just that though to pass the WP:SIRS test of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Transport 2000 was not a predecessor organisation. It changed its name.  I think you should do a bit more research before you start proposing to delete organisations about which you dont appear to know much. Rathfelder (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Semantics does not alter the fact that article was more about Michael Palin than the organisation, and my knowledge isn't the point here, it is whether the organisation can pass the requisite notability test. And I'm not convinced, from what I've seen, that it has the appropriate coverage to do that. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete The organisation gets a lot of of passing mentions in media coverage and is routinely quoted by the British media whenever there is a transport proposal but I couldn't find multiple sources that would meet WP:SIRS so going to suggest a delete. I think, subject to the sources being available the organisation would have sufficient media coverage to warrant an article but at the current time I don't think we have enough to justify the article. (List below of the sources I have identified which give passing mentioned but are not sufficient secondary sources)   Tracland (talk) 06:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. They are routinely quoted in the media for good reason. Virtually every one of the dozens of government reports on transport takes evidence from them, for instance .  This article in the Eastern Daily Express is almost entirely about the CBT's recommendations on Greater Anglia trains. Urban Transport Planning and Management discusses them from page 418 to page 421 including some discussion on controversial aspects of the organisation. Campaign for Better Transport on the Bus Services Bill is a BBC interview with a CBT representative. SpinningSpark 23:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I get that as a transport campaign group they issue lots of press releases and respond to lots of transport consultations in support of their POV, but is there significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources that would satisfy the WP:SIRS requirement with regards to notability? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If I didn't think that, I wouldn't have !voted keep. SpinningSpark 21:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Plenty of independent coverage - some a long time ago when it was called Transport 2000 and not accessible to Google.  Rathfelder (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If we are to use that independent coverage to help establish notability here though, we'll need cites, whether they be books, newspaper articles, or whatever, otherwise that notability will not be verifiable by readers. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The question is whether coverage exists. Not whether it's in the article.  As the official history of the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association shows, Transport 2000 was a significant campaigning organisation.  It got lots of coverage in the 1970s and 80s.  Rathfelder (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * to establish notability of this article, the SIRS guideline requires that there are multiple sources, with coverage in each which is significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. How can an assessment of notability be made without these sources being cited? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * On the balance of probabilities. TSSA references other sources. Stephen Joseph was given an OBE for his work here.  "His wide-ranging expertise and contacts have helped to make the organisation the country’s leading transport NGO."  I can see plenty more sources. You might start with the House of Commons: Transport Committee which regularly took evidence from Joseph on behalf of the organisation.  You are supposed to do this BEFORE.  "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. " Rathfelder (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Sure, as I said before, it is a campaign organisation, and it lobbies hard to promote its cause. However, minutes, reports, etc. recording its contributions, even those produced by government committees, do not satisfy the requirement of in depth coverage of the organisation itself. According to WP:ORGDEPTH what we are looking for, and in multiple different secondary sources, is coverage that "provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." And it's not a matter of quantity of mentions either, the above mentioned section also says "A collection of multiple trivial sources do not become significant".
 * And remember too, the organisation cannot inherit the notability of it's personnel, even that of Stephen Joseph. To clinch this, what we need to see are cites to a number of the type of quality sources that the guidelines ask for. If they aren't forthcoming, then it will be difficult to demonstrate that the requirements are met. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agreed with DeFacto, in order for this to be notable there need to be multiple independent reliable sources about the organisation itself not documentation recording its contributions as a lobby group to transport matters (such matters may themselves be notable topics in their own right). I'd like this article to exist but in order to be able to justify its existence in accordance with WP:ORG or WP:GNG we are going to need to be able to find multiple reliable secondary sources about the organisation itself [clarrification 1 July 2020 @ 19.28 BSTand cite these in the article and once found please ensure these are cited in the article to ensure the article is well referenced]. If these are available then I will happily support keeping the article but, at the moment, my opinion is we do not have enough to support keeping the article.Tracland (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, that's a common misconception about notability. We don't require that we have to "cite these in the article" before an article is notable.  It is the subject that is notable, not the article.  Here's what WP:ORG has to say on this, Notability requires only that these necessary sources have been published—even if these sources are not actually listed in the article yet. SpinningSpark 08:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

And how do we know that such sources have been published if no-one is able to name them? Would I be able to create an article called 'DeFacto Publications' on the basis that because I can source that my work has been published all over the place, in newspapers and books and on websites including government websites, that there must therefore be multiple independent reliable sources describing my organisation in the necessary detail to support notability? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what strawman you are trying to knock down. I did provide sources in my first post here. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 10:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * sorry, I must have misunderstood your point then. Which sources do you mean that have been published but which aren't in the artle? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no idea whether the sources I put forward are in the article or not, and see no pressing reason why I should bother to find out. You can easily check for yourself if you really believe that is significant in some way. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 11:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks, the penny has dropped now. You're thinking the four sources you mentioned further up should cover this? If so, I totally disagree with you, and I thought that was clear from my first reply to you. Of the four you offered, three are just coverage of their campaigning activities, and not the type of cover that WP:SIRS requires to demonstrate notability. That leaves the article in "Urban Transport Planning and Management", which I haven't seen yet, but even if it "provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization", it is the only source we have doing so, and SIRS requires multiple such sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, it was perfectly clear that you disagree. It should have also been perfectly clear that I disagree with your disagreement.  It is entirely beyond doubt that Urban Transport Planning and Management at least, meets the SIRS criteria.  I don't know why you are hesitating to accept that one.  CBT is discussed as an organisation, including its history, over four pages.  They unarguably provide analysis, since there is a controversies section where they discuss and analyse criticisms of CBT.  The first of these is the claim that CBT is an industry lobby group.  That criticism, I believe, comes from Transport-Watch UK who discuss CBT on this page.  They also give a short, but non-trivial, history of CBT.  Now Transport-Watch is a bit iffy as a reliable source because it seems to be mostly a one-man show run by Paul F Withrington.  However, I believe it is acceptable under WP:SPS since Withrington is a transport planning professional and has been previously published in the relevant field according to their site.  That makes two sources and multiple is more than one.  I also contend that articles like the one in Eastern Daily Pess count towards notability because they concentrate on a campaign by CBT rather than the issue CBT is campaigning on.  Please don't waste space coming back telling me you disagree with that one, I know you do – if you didn't this would be an easy pass since there are a lot more like it.  Also significant to my mind (but probably not getting past SIRS) is the fact that the Local Government Association felt it was necessary to take action in response to a CBT report.  If the CBT were just a bunch of nobodies turning up at every transport inquiry to push their agenda, then they could have comfortably been ignored.  But clearly they are not. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 13:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I accept what you're saying about Urban Transport Planning and Management, even though I cannot find it online to check, but that still leaves us short of the full 'multiple' of such sources that we require. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The wording in my comment wasn't intended to mean that the citations needed to be included in the article in order for the topic in order for the topic to be notable (this is clearly nonsensical or no articles could be made). It was intended as a recommendation as in: we are going to need to be able to find multiple reliable secondary sources about the organisation in order for the topic to be notable and [once these sources have been identified] cite these in the article [in order to improve the general quality article]. Apologies, as reading this back a second time I can see that this could easily be interpreted differently to what I actually meant . I've clarified my intentions above also leaving the original wording.Tracland (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Notability of Stephen Joseph is not inherited. He was brought before the Transport Committee - every year for several years - as a spokesperson for Transport 2000.  The House of Commons clearly valued the organisation's contributions to its discussions.  That is as notable as you get with a think tank or campaigning organisation.  If that doesn't pass muster we should delete all the other articles about think tanks.  Rathfelder (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rathfelder and SpinningSpork. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 08:58, 2 July 2020 (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.