Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 42


 * 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

London Buses route 42

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

There are some external links to primary sources which demonstrate that this bus route exists, but there is no evidence that it meets the notability test of WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Some of the material in the article could be incorporated in an expanded List of bus routes in London, so a merger may be appropriate. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  --  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  --  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge. Bus routes ought to be held to the test of "significant coverage in reliable sources". Otherwise they cannot be the subject of reliable encyclopaedic articles. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:16, 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) 23:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Don't you think that merging everything with List of bus routes in London might make the latter a tad long? Given there's hundreds of routes. Arriva436talk/contribs 19:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The list already exists. Given the concerns about its length, it's probably best just to delete the articles on non-notable routes rather than merge them. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep for now, there is already ongoing discussion on this elsewhere, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport. These AfD's certianly don't help the process users are currently going through to determine which articles are notable and which aren't. Jeni  ( talk ) 22:15, 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) 23:48, 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 ) 23:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 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, and prefer to keep these things away from AFD. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

What relevance does that have to this discussion? Jeni ( talk ) 00:09, 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) 00:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The entire purpose of using PROD is to remove articles to whose removal nobody will object. If anyone objects for any reason at all, the deletion is not uncontroversial, and they can and should remove the prod. To object to their doing so is entirely besides the point--the point is that they do object, and that therefore whoever placed the prod cannot assume that their view is the consensus without a discussion. To remove it was the right and fair procedure--to object to it is being argumentative to no purpose, since the thing for the prodder to do, is argue the issue, and see if people will agree.  To say that a contested matter is uncontestable is a self-contradiction, unless of course someone thinks when they are sure they are right, they are infallible.      DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course anyone can contest a PROD, and I would deplore any suggest of them being uncontestable; the point is that unless there is agreement, there should then be discussion at AFD. Unfortunately, in this case the editor who contested the PROD has also been opposing the existence of the AFD discussions which are supposed to allow consideration of the arguments, and has steadfastly refused to offer any reasons to keep the articles whose PRD she opposed.
 * What's the point of having AFD and PROD as separate processes if an editor who contests a PROD don't offer any reasons to keep the article, and denounces the AFD? It's like a Congressman demanding that time be set aside for a debate on a topic and then refusing to speak on the substance and denouncing the existence of the debate. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:30, 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) 00:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment on procedural keeps. These should be disregarded. Any editor is entitled to bring an AfD, regardless of whatever discussions are taking place within a Wikiproject. The community at large decides notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:29, 30 March 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) 04:51, 4 April 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 ) 03:03, 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)
 * Keep I hadn't got round to sourcing this one yet, but I've managed to find a lot of coverage to verify large parts of the article. Unsourced material is a major problem on these articles but we are working to improve them. Please give us time as most of the articles can be made acceptable. Alzarian16 (talk) 08:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Congrats on verifying some of the article, although it remains overwhelmingly unreferenced.
 * The only independent coverage so far is the report Bus kills pedestrian on Walworth pavement. That's not really an article about the route as such, it's about an accident, and as such it's a similar situation to a WP:BLP1E issue: the general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person.
 * If the man had been killed by Sean Citizen's Ford Escort, would we have an article on Sean Citizen's Ford Escort? I doubt it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's incorrect to say that the report is the only independent coverage, as the book source is as well. I agree that the report wouldn't be enough by itself, but together with the book and the hybrid coverage (although admittedly this isn't independent) I feel it adds up to enough to justify keeping. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you are of course right that there is also a reference to the book McLachlan, Tom (1995). London Buses 1985-1995: Managing The Change, about which I find a webpage here and 1-para review at http://www.themodelbus.com/books/books_London_L.htm
 * It's hard to tell without seeing the book, but both those links suggest that the broad scope of the book makes it is unlikely that any individual bus route will have received significant coverage. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The coverage is basically two sentences on London Country South East's acquisition of the route in 1987. This may well not be enough to qualify as significant coverage, although it does support the text of the sentence I referenced to it. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well done verifying the fact, but I think that two sentences in a book is quite a long way short of significant coverage. "Brief mention" might be a better way of describing it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Disruptive deletion spree made without due diligence per Articles for deletion/London Buses route 74. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF, please. I did indeed follow WP:BEFORE, and if you look above your comment you will see that even the editor who has worked on trying to improve many of these articles (and is most familiar with the sources) can find no evidence of notability. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't given up just yet: per a comment I made here which was initially rejected as not worth the effort, I intend to look through old issues of Buses Magazine to find the significant coverage this article needs. I do however agree that your nominations weren't disruptive. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * delete or redirect. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Sources that have been found still do not constitute significant coverage--Crossmr (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable third party sources - name drops only. Karanacs (talk) 13:25, 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) 04:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * note to closing administrator this article has gone through significant improvements since it was nominated for deletion.
 * keep; well sourced article, meets all notability guidelines. Okip  15:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * keep; sorry it has taken me so long to reply.. I'm in the process of moving home..all of the article can be referenced in the Omnibus Societies' publications 'London Bus Routes and allocations from 1899 /1908 until 1925' published at various dates over the last ten years, as well as LOTS London Omnibus Traction Society publications.. My books are packed away at the moment so I'm not able to give ISBN numbers right now, but would be wiling to supply them asap. The 42 is an example of a London Bus Route which has, over the years, moved it's area of operation, whilst retaining the same route number. See also London Buses route 93 of which I'm also the author.--IsarSteve (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Question: Have you noticed dozens of other London bus routes are up for deletion? Do these books that you are mentioning help reference all of those too? If so, this could help save all those articles as well. Dew Kane (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually hadn't noticed. Of course they do, they are the standard works on London Bus Routes and allocations: I'm not sure why you think I would want to make up all this stuff..and the deletion has IMO more to do with internal WIKI insecurity and wanting to save space than this notion that the articles are not 'notable'.--IsarSteve (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * From 1910 until 1933, The London General Omnibus Company issued bus maps on a monthly basis (except during WW1) and all the route changes can be verified on those too. The Omnibus Society books record route changes plus garage/vehicle allocations. --IsarSteve (talk) 22:33, 4 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.