Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 231


 * 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. The only keep that actually adressed this article, instead of all bus route articles, changed to "redirect" on closer examination of the sources available. So among the people discussing this article, and not some general principle, the consensus is clear that it should either be deleted or redirected. Anyone wanting to create redirects after the deletion is free to do so of course. Fram (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

London Buses route 231

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Another non-notable London bus route. This one had been tagged with notability and unreferenced since May 2009, and a few hours ago both tags were removed in this edit which added some refs but nothing approaching evidence of notability.

Per WP:GNG, notability is established through substantial coverage in reliable sources, and there is no evidence of that for this route.

There is already a List of bus routes in London, so after deletion this title could be re-created as a redirect to the list. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC) The assessments there seem pretty shoddy. For example, this comment praises London Buses route 187, but I see no evidence there of notability. Meanwhile, Jeni contested a series of PRODs for West Midlands bus routes for which there was no evidence of notability. If WikiProjects don't follow accepted standards of notability, then editors really do not have valid grounds for complaint that community-wide forums are used to remove non-notable material. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  --  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  --  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep for now, there is already ongoing discussion on this elsewhere. Jeni  ( talk ) 22:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Then why are you choosing to ignore the discussion and mass AfD articles? You have noted in a comment somewhere that the discussion has been ongoing for a week, what you have failed to notice is that there is currently a couple of editors already going through each bus route article, assessing them for notability, adding references where needed and redirecting where notability isn't there. I see this as a pointy nomination more than anything. I'd have thought an admin would be setting an example and contributing to a discussion rather than these rash nominations. Jeni  ( talk ) 23:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I only AFDed 6; I PRODded 13, which you disrupted by removing the PROD without offering any reason to keep the articles. If you persist in disrupting lightweight mechanisms for removing non-notable material, don't accuse anyone else of pointiness. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My reasons for removing the prods were very very clear, if you took the time to read the edit summaries (where it is generally accepted that reasons for PROD removal are located). Jeni  ( talk ) 23:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, clarity! Indeed, your reasons for removing the West Midlands PRODs were that you asserted notability for those bus routes, even tho there was no evidence of notability and no claim of notability. Those reasons were indeed clear: clearly nonsense. If you think that this is  a notable bus route, it's little wonder that you don't want the wider community to scrutinise the notability of any such articles. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

What relevance does that have to this discussion? Jeni ( talk ) 00:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's relevant because it is evidence that all your procedural ruses are just a form of disruption, and that your actual purpose is trying to keep non-notable material. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Procedural keep – since there is an on-going discussion elsewhere, please withdraw discussion to that location. The article can be renominated, if necessary, after the conclusion of the current discussion. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no discussion of this or any other individual bus route. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep on its own merits. All established bus routes are major features of the local geography, and if an article can be written, it should be; whether they are better merged is a question of style. The information is encyclopedic. . If people look at these articles and decide that they want to keep them, that makes a practical policy of exception to the GNG.There are other ways of showing notability, and it is in fact contrary to the current WP:N guideline to say the the GNG is the only way.  Personally, I think trying to remove establish borderline articles is a very poor use of time here, when there are so many important things like unsourced BLPs to attend to,   DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability offers another way only where there are agreed separate guidelines.
 * There is a very good practical reason for GNG: that it is an inevitable consequence of the core policy WP:V. Without it, an article can exist only as either original research or as repetition of primary source material.
 * In the case of these articles, most of the material is simply unsourced, a situation which is all too common with topics which fail GNG. This article is a good example of that: it has no footnotes, and there is no indication of whether the content is from primary sources, or some unreliable source, or is just something made up. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Oops, missed this one. Essentially per BrownHairedGirl. GNG is an important guideline and shouldn't discarded lightly. It is important for good reason.  Without significant coverage in reliable sources, it is usually impossible to have an encyclopaedic article about a subject that is properly verified.  These bus route articles are a case in point: they are littered with original research and for all we know could be totally inaccurate.  The reason they are littered with original research is because the reliable sources aren't there.  For that reason, the original research is fatal and unsalvageable.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I may have been wrong to remove the notability tag, but I genuinely felt the route's history was significant enough that it justified an article. After a small expansion and the addition of a new source, I still feel that this is true. See below. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well done sourcing one of the points in the article, but none of the sources comes anywhere near meeting the test in WP:GNG, of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article has 3 footnoted sources:
 * So I don't see anything which can justify keeping the article. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sadly it seems that you're right, so I can't really argue my case any more. Move to Redirect as better than deletion since the page is already linked to from a number of others. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A redirect can be created after deletion, but redirecting without deletion leaves anyone free to simply revert the redirect. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is the worst argument for deletion I've ever heard in my life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeni (talk • contribs) 11:39, 30 March 2010
 * As you should know if you had read the nomination, the substantive argument for deletion is clear, and founded in policy: that the article does not meet WP:GNG. You have offered any evidence to counter that.
 * So why exactly do you object to deleting the article, and then creating a redirect? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Disruptive deletion spree made without due diligence per Articles for deletion/London Buses route 74. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF, please. I did indeed follow WP:BEFORE. I do not claim to have perfectly checked for every possible source, and an exhaustive trawl is not required by WP:BEFORE. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I would say that your keep !votes and lack of AGF are more disruptive than these nominations.--Crossmr (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * delete or redirect. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources.--Crossmr (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect per nom. Orderinchaos 17:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable third party sources - name drops only. Karanacs (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep all information contained in this article is verifiable. The majority of London bus routes are notable, and the system is notable. Dew Kane (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: While I still support this being kept, even if the majority say delete, it should be merged to a parent article, and the edit history retained, so in the future, someone can dig up what is already written in an old version, and improve upon it. Dew Kane (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Scott Mac (Doc) 12:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete or redirect - apparently no coverage in reliable sources, which is a necessary precondition for us writing an article about a subject. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel&#39;s Demons (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as this lacks significant coverage from reliable third parties.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) ✄ ✄ ✄	 02:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per BHG's analysis of the sources. No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Reyk  YO!  11:15, 10 April 2010 (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.