Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalston bus garage


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  22:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Dalston bus garage

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep The place had a good run of 75 years and the fact that the site was a barracks before seems notable. As well as being a significant bus depot and hub for multiple bus companies, it has also attracted coverage in other respects.  There were significant studies of diesel fumes there as a matter of occupational health.  And there were some communist organisers there who show up in labour histories such as Radical Aristocrats – London Busworkers from the 1880s to the 1980s. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please provide at least 3 independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. All I can find in book searches are mentions and there is nothing at all in news searches. SK2242 (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am quite content with the results of my searching and so shall go to bed rather than bringing the nominator more shrubberies. See WP:NOTCOMPULSORY: "Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians."  Andrew🐉(talk) 23:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you don’t have anything for GNG then I’m quite content this should be deleted. SK2242 (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * See below for more details. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. I PRODded this a few days ago while scanning through articles that had notability tags from 2009. All I could find about this garage was an entry on red-rf.com (non-RS), an image of the interior of the garage on ltmuseum.co.uk, and a one-sentence mention on timebus.co.uk. There is a 1957 study on diesel fumes which ran some tests in Merton and Dalston garages, but if being an example test site for primary industrial medicine research papers from the 50s is grounds for notability then we'd have to write articles on hundreds of local foundries and water tanks. JoelleJay (talk) 02:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. References are not sufficient to justify notability. DoctorsHub (talk) 06:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sockstrike. Blablubbs | talk 20:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. AnotherEditor144talk contribs 09:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sockstrike. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. It exists. That's about all it has going for it. Fails WP:GNG. Move on. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't exist. The article says clearly that it closed in 1981 and so it seems that Piotrus hasn't read it.  1981 is before the Internet and so the history of this place is not so easy to access.  I expect that there's more to find in the London Transport Museum.  I would normally pop in there to check but it's closed currently on account of the pandemic.  There are clearly sensible alternatives to deletion such as merger with Dalston but, as usual, the usual suspects fail to consider these. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Who do you mean by "usual suspects"? There are clear as day guidelines on notability, adhering to them and locating articles which fail them does not make you a "zealot". SK2242 (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * SK2242 has a userbox which gives us a clue. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Your point? I’d rather be a deletionist than someone who ignores notability guidelines to protect their favourite articles. SK2242 (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Update An occasional editor who seems to know their stuff has favoured us with a good update citing sources such as London Transport Bus Garages Since 1948 and London Transport Bus Garages. The nay-sayers above are thereby refuted. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No we are not. What is the level of coverage in these sources? SK2242 (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Once sources are found, one soon leads to another. I've just found another one of the same sort: Garaging London's Red Buses.  What the article mainly needs now is some good photos.  The London Transport Museum has some excellent ones which I'm working through now. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Did not answer my question but ok. SK2242 (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would also like to know the extent of coverage. The only one of the new refs added that I could view online was Wharmby's book, which has a short chapter on the "Dalston Experimentals" but doesn't seem to cover the garage itself; rather it seems to discuss the particular buses employed on Dalston's routes? I assume the books on the actual garages have more details, but if the info added to the article with those refs reflects their degree of coverage then I don't think that would satisfy notability. JoelleJay (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   13:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable edifice with enough decent sources to justify an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2021 (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.