Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essex bus route H1


 * 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 delete. Although there are some sources available, The Legendary Ranger quite correctly observes that they all date from around the time that the bus route was closed. Hence, there does not appear to be any lasting impact. Combined with the fact that the coverage is limited to a local edition of a newspaper, I find that the delete !votes have the stronger arguments. Randykitty (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Essex bus route H1

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It is a minor bus route which ceased operating four years ago therefore it is not notable. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 22:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  22:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  22:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG as this single bus route has surprisingly some of the most in-depth significant coverage I've seen, probably due to its importance for the student population. As for the nom's "ceased operating four years ago therefore it is not notable" statement, once something is notable, it's always notable.  The Broadway Limited ceased operating twenty years ago.  I dare the nom to AfD that article with the same rationale.--Oakshade (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Being an ex route does not matter but it needs more than a few mentions in the local paper to establish notability in the first place.Charles (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a Bizarro World comment that completely contradicts reality. The primary definition of WP:GNG is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."  How is significant coverage in reliable sources about this subject that are independent of this subject not in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources about this subject?   The in-dpeth significant coverage this is primarily about his topic is much more than than a "few mentions" and one of the sources, The Guardian, is a national (even international) source, not a "local paper."--Oakshade (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem not to understand the difference between the (former Manchester) Guardian and the Epping Forest Guardian. Multiple articles in the same paper are treated as a single source. " Significant coverage" is normally taken to mean wider than local papers. This is not significant in Wikipedia terms.Charles (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "'Significant coverage' is normally taken to mean wider than local papers."??? Where did this come from?  Certainly not WP:GNG.  WP:GNG's full definition of "significant coverage" is:
 * "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."
 * WP:GNG does not and have never disqualified significant coverage because they came from a "local" source. The coverage this topic addresses Essex bus route H1 directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content and is the main topic of the source material, despite WP:GNG not requiring the latter.  If you'd like to change WP:GNG's definition of "significant coverage" to "mean wider than local papers", you need to take up your preference on WP:GNG's talk page, not invent your own definition in a single AfD.  --Oakshade (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That prevailing view comes from a combination of guidelines like WP:AUD and the nutshell of WP:N itself - "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". AUD applies to WP:NCORP, though this is the "product" of a company and "world at large" is ambiguous. That said, while there's no chance that a handful of articles from local papers would meet anyone's definition of the "world at large", the inclusion of "local coverage" clauses in WP:GNG has not gained consensus.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 09:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Even per WP:AUD states "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." The publication doesn't just cover a single municipality, but an entire region and this bus-route had regional importance, hence the very in-depth coverage over a period of a year.--Oakshade (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And that's the problem with the definition of "regional". In Australia, an entire region can be covered by one municipal council, while in others it might be six or seven. The point of those guidelines is that a thing must be notable to a wider audience for a reasonably long period of time. I don't think coverage in a few (even regional) papers for a year is sufficient. But it might be enough for others and I respect that.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 21:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * An English region would encompass a few or several counties. The area here is much less than one county.Charles (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually this bus route covered multiple cities in multiple parishes - Harlow, North Weald, Epping, Debden, Loughton - in the scope of WPs loosely defined term of "regional." --Oakshade (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * None of those are cities.Charles (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've lived in London so I am familiar with these places. While a municipality like Harlow with a population of over 80,000 might not be technically called a city, by all practical purposes it is. --Oakshade (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - this doesn't seem to have gained any sort of attention from the world at large. While obviously popular with locals, significant coverage in small-circulation local press is generally not considered enough.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 09:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I was leaning towards delete as I can't see anything particularly notable about this now cancelled route - it is certainly verifiable, but that alone does not make it notable. However, I stopped short of arguing for deletion, as regional and metropolitan rail and light rail routes are almost always notable, therefore why not major bus routes? My only concern is with WP:NOTDIR, as there are literally thousands of bus routes in cities all over the world. The article really should be improved to demonstrate why this one was significant, as opposed to say the ACTION No. 56 bus that stops outside my house linking Canberra City with Belconnen via Gungahlin (a catchment area of close to 200,000 which I would not expect to withstand a deletion debate if I was to create an article? Dfadden (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per above - Fails NOTDIR & TRAVELGUIDE, Someone could move it to a Wikia if really wanted. – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 01:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How is an in-depth article about a former bus route and its impact on the region along with very significant coverage about the topic a "directory listing" to warrant a NOTDIR and TRAVELGUIDE argument?--Oakshade (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If I say it fails NOTDIR & TRAVELGUIDE then it does so deal with it. – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 04:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If that's how it's left, then all your !vote is is a straw man argument as the article is not a "directory listing" nor a "travel guide." --Oakshade (talk) 04:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note to self: Read the article before making moronic !votes based on ... well polices that don't apply!..... I think I best go sleep before I say something else idiotic! – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 04:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG. The subject seems non notable to keep an encyclopedic article. Maduwanwela (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a guideline? How is it that a topic that has received in-depth reliable coverage "fails GNG"?  "Seems" like it fails GNG doesn't count.--Oakshade (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I see no significant persistent coverage for this bus route. The sources mentioned were all written when Regal announced its elimination. ANY public transit line that gets cut, no matter how big or small, WILL get a brief outburst of coverage because its riders will take action to stop it or get it restored (e.g. protests, social media posts, board meetings, etc.) That does not make them notable. In 2010, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York) eliminated, rerouted, or shortened dozens of bus lines, all of which received brief coverage in the NY Times and other major news sites due to the high number of people affected. Some have since been restored, leading to more brief outbursts of coverage, but that does not meet we should have articles on every single bus route affected, does it? I wished List of bus routes in Essex was not deleted because that would have been the perfect article to merge some of the contents here to. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2015 (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.