Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 68


 * 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 was heading for delete, but after Colonel Warden's rewrite a consensus has either been people wanting it kept, or indeed switching votes. Scott Mac (Doc) 13:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

London Buses route 68

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable bus-route, with neither a claim to notability nor any evidence of notability per WP:GNG.

I PRODded it, but the PROD was contested on the grounds of a pre-existing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport. However, the assessments in that discussion seem pretty shoddy. For example, this comment praises London Buses route 187, but I see no evidence there of notability.

The editor who removed this PROD also contested a series of PRODs for West Midlands bus routes for which there was no evidence of notability, such as this one this. If WikiProjects don't follow accepted standards of notability, and editors block the use of lightweight deletion mechanisms such as PROD, then inevitably articles gets brought to AFD which should be deleted with less effort from the community.

If editors want to keep this article, please can can we have some actual evidence of notability per WP:GNG rather than the disruptive procedural objections which have disrupted other similar AFDs? Thank you. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  --  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  --  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:52, 30 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 ) 00:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not so. There is no discussion there of individual bus routes, other than a few comments such as the wholly unjustified praise for London Buses route 187. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep Keep as discussed. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:17, 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) 04:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all articles on bus routes because, among other reasons, each bus company should be maintaining its own website where accurate, up to date information is provided to the public. No need for us to duplicate their efforts.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Not every trivial thing that exists in a directory needs a stand alone article. See not a directory. Edison (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * delete or redirect. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources.--Crossmr (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Mkativerata. Not to mention that this article doesn't even attempt to establish notability Resolute 01:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a bus timetable. Notable routes (which do exist, see for example Dublin Bus route 46A) can have articles; others should be listified. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Not on the timetable ground - it's possible for a good bus route article to be written based on historical and current sources - but this one isn't one of them and is not going to be one of them, as there does not seem to be any significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Orderinchaos 17:31, 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)
 * Redirect or delete Nothing worth keeping on this one, as the lack of sources or any sort of history shows. Move to keep. Has a lot more going for it since Colonel Warden's expansion and sourcing work, including some fairly significant coverage in reliable sources. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:08, 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) 04:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * EXTREMELY STRONG DELETE!!!! Because anyone who wants to keep this article is the same as Adolf Hitler.  Why do I say that? Because he thought the British people were stupid. "A nation of shopkeepers," I think he said. Or was that Napoleon?  Well, no matter. Anyway keeping these articles on London bus routes sends the message that we think the British are too stupid to get this information to the world without the help of "an encyclopedia anyone can edit."  Not as bad as the London Blitz, but at heart the same.Steve Dufour (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hitler? Seriously, your comment is misinformed, insulting and completely fails to address the point of the discussion. You've posted the same ridiculous essay on several of these AFDs too...  Aiken   &#9835;   14:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In the United States you have the legal right to agree with Hitler that the British are stupid. In some other countries expressing that view would be a crime. I happen to think the British are smart enough to post their own website giving the public the information on their bus routes without WP getting involved beyond providing a link to that site. (i.e. "WP is not a directory.") However as I said Nazism is not illegal in the United States and I don't think it should be banned on WP, so feel free to express whatever views you like. ;-)  Steve Dufour (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This !vote is invalid as, apart from it not addressing the topic, it duplicates another !vote from the same user above. Perhaps he has been confused by the great volume of these hasty and disruptive nominations.  Colonel Warden (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The only thing disruptive is your false claims.--Crossmr (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are the diffs for the two separate !votes by the same editor: 1 2
 * Disclaimer (as per talk page request) Fans of the London bus system are not really Nazis. This was a joke. However, I still think bus routes are not suitable topics for WP articles since they are only of interest to potential riders.Steve Dufour (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I have just done some work to improve the article, adding historical detail from a variety of reliable sources. This demonstrates the topic's notability and invalidates all the delete !votes above which are based upon the lack of sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you just made this false claim on another article for the equivalent of 3 sentences, I won't buy it until you actually provide the text of those sources that demonstrates there is anything more than a single sentence in any of those sources about the subject. The first little bit you've written is nothing more than a dolled up basic description of existence. It doesn't look like you actually got anything of substance from any of those sources that wasn't general statements about all the routes. All you've written was when it was made, where it ran (taken off a map), and then descriptions that would describe the entire system (like the switch to routemaster operations). Absolutely nothing specific or special to this route.--Crossmr (talk) 01:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken - the sources provide detailed text which is particular to this particular route.   As you do not appear to have studied the sources yourself, your comments appear to be guesswork.  I cannot provide copies of the sources for you as this would breach their copyright.  If you wish copies please buy them yourself, as I did. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete- because Wikipedia is not a directory. This article fails to establish the notability of the subject. Like Crossmr, I am hesitant to place much weight on Colonel Warden's sources without being able to see the text because I have known that user to frequently present passing mentions as substantial coverage. I am also not very impressed with the procedural obstructionism of some of the early keep !votes. Reyk  YO!  05:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is hard to remain civil when we see hostile editors voting blind in this prejudiced way. The sources in this case are indeed quite adequate to establish notability.  The Routemaster Omnibus, for example, has a full page about the route with many paragraphs of text specifically about it.  The entry has a bold heading for the route and so is clearly about the route specifically and is in no way a passing mention.  I have no personal knowledge of the route and so all the information which was added to the article was taken from the various sources.  There are more such sources which I have yet to inspect for this particular route.  And I have yet to comb through the internet looking for everything that's out there.  But I just made a quick trawl for this case and in just a minute found this article by a Time Out journalist, which provides a good account of his personal relationship with this particular route which he describes in great detail.  Taken with the other sources, such material is more than adequate to support an article and this is just what I have found in a few minutes of lookup and searching.  I am not a bus enthusiast and so am having to develop some familiarity with the topic from scratch to respond to these numerous nominations with their absurdly impractical deadline of 7 days.  The shame is that the editors who do know more about the topic seem quite cowed by the relentless philistinism of those who demand hours of effort without pay, recognition or respect.  I exert myself on behalf of readers like  Dubmill who seem unwilling to represent their strong views at AFD - perhaps seeing it as a place where they will be scorned and treated with contempt, as we see here. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are having difficult remaining civil while editing this particular subject, I might suggest a different subject or a step back. There is nothing difficult about remaining civil. We are responsible for and control our own actions.--Crossmr (talk) 11:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You have twice above accused me of making false claims. Please see Tu quoque. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should just stop making false claims about people. If you cannot remain civil, and refrain from commenting on the contributor, not the content, you should definitely walk away.  Aiken   &#9835;   13:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, you have one editor calling other editors Hitler, and then you have another editor saying he does not trust Colonel, showing extreme bad faith, and you have the audacity to lecture Colonel about civility? I appreciate you calling out the editor who called other editors Hitler though. Okip  15:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Colonel Warden has posted almost identical disruptive comments on several AFDs, accusing the nominator of many things he has no proof of whatsoever. Instead of analysing the article on its merits he went on the attack and criticized the process in which they were nominated, accusing the nominator of not having followed correct procedure. He has also attempted to discredit the very valid delete votes from people. It seems he is unable to disagree without attacking the person he is disagreeing with. This is very sad and I hope he will change his approach to AFDs.  Aiken   &#9835;   15:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not attacked the nominator - my point has been to call for the nomination to be speedily closed. Per WP:SAUCE, editors who ask that the work of other editors be deleted should not complain if, in turn, there are requests that their nominations should likewise be terminated.  AFD nominations are not sacrosanct and, as they are time-consuming and fractious in controversial cases of this sort, we should better reserve them for cases where there is more likelihood of unanimity. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note to closing nominator the article has gone through signifigant improvements since the article was put up for deletion. Okip  14:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * With respect, the improvements don't change the fact the route simply does not meet our criteria for inclusion.  Aiken   &#9835;   14:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per sources added. As Nicholson Baker of the New York Review of Books wrote: "...a lot of good work—verifiable, informative, brain-leapingly strange—is being cast out of this paperless, infinitely expandable accordion folder by people who have a narrow, almost grade-schoolish notion of what sort of curiosity an online encyclopedia will be able to satisfy in the years to come." Okip  15:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling that the New York Review of Books does not let anyone say anything they like in its pages.Steve Dufour (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

But which exactly are the refs which establish notability through significant coverage? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Colonel Warden has found sources, which he listed in the discussion above. I believe notability is established.  Many of the deletes seem to just hate all bus articles in general.   D r e a m Focus  19:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems that somebody hasn't cracked this whole AGF thing. :(
 * Comment I think that Google maps' satellite pictures of neighborhoods and so forth are extremely interesting to look at, but that's not a reason to have an article on every square block pictured. I think an article on a bus route is kind of the same thing. It's interesting to check it out and see what kind of places you would be passing as you rode the bus, but that's not the same as notability here on WP. Also I am a big fan of public transportation and like to ride it when visiting a city -- and it's thousands of times more important to human life than lots of things that are WP notable -- but still we shouldn't have articles on individual bus routes. You can go to the bus companies' own sites to check them out. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We routinely cover all human settlements now and all city streets in notable places like central London have articles too. Your opinion that we should not cover such topics is not supported by policy or the general consensus.  And software developers are starting to rely upon this level of coverage by building apps for devices like the iPhone that will let you call up the relevant Wikipedia article when you point its camera at something.  Bus destination boards are a natural visual cue for such an app and so it makes sense to structure our coverage of buses in this way. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that something like that would be useful, and fun. I just don't think that is what an encyclopedia is for. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments:
 * 1.) 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.
 * 2.) Steve Defour's comments are extremely offensive and should not be considered in the final closing. He should possibly be blocked for them. Being of interest only to a small crowd, such as bus riders, is not a good reason NOT to include an article. I was in London in 1999 on a trip and I rode the buses there. I do not see any guideline that says an article must be deleted if it is only of interest to a small number of people. Dew Kane (talk) 04:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh come on. It was a joke as Steve Dufour has said, both here and on his talk page. Bad and tasteless joke, sure, and one I hope and believe he won't make again. Reyk  YO!  10:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete It lacks notability. That in all the years of its existence one journalist managed to get an article about his personal experience of it printed in a listings magazine does not confer notability. To extend User:Edison's comment, not every trivial thing that has ever been mentioned needs a stand alone article. NebY (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So a Time Out journalist is not notable. How about a sometime chief editor of The Times - England's premier journal of record?  Sir Simon Jenkins described this route as the "Queen of buses" which seems like a pretty good accolade.   And that's just what I found in another brief search.  Every time I take a dip in the sources, I have no difficulty finding something and this is good evidence that there's a lot more to find.  Just how many sources are required to satisfy you?  We currently have 8.  Please specify and justify your requirement, bearing in mind that this topic now has more citations than the main article on Bus. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Colonel, that Simon Jenkins praises it in passing does not automatically make it notable within the terms of WP:GNG or even in the eyes of the man on the Clapham omnibus. Congratulations on finding more mentions; I note that you increased the above figure from 5 to 8 in recent minutes. Quantity, however, is not quality. These days, any local feature accumulates multiple mentions and the wonders of the internet allow us to find them quickly - as you demonstrate. Whether that feature is notable within the terms of Wikipedia is another matter. NebY (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems that you have yet to add a single reference to any article, let alone 8. Please explain your certainty that none of these references are substantial.  Have you obtained copies of these works, as I have?  I have added many sources to many articles and consider these ones to be quite good. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I fear you do not have the research skills you think you have, at least as regards myself. But it's clear this is time to walk away from an exchange which is becoming personal. I'll leave it to you to have the last word; mine remains Delete. NebY (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep  I held off commenting in order to see what could be done with the 2-sentence stub that had been first sent to AFD.  The results now show an encyclopdic and sourced topic that serves the project.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment (to follow up on my earlier Keep). The article is much improved now, and the references are good. A Wikipedia article about a bus route should discuss its history, as this article does, especially since this information is unlikely to be available on the bus operator's website. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per the changes made since nomination - sourcing seems to have improved sufficiently. Regards,    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 21:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep It would be tragic to loose this outstanding article. Colonel Warden has treated us to a master class of quality encyclopedic writing. The article now reminds one of Chelsea Bridge a FA class transport article that Iridescent enlivened with human interest. ...  "Bare-knuckle boxing... A city dependent on a network of hollow elm trunks to carry its water supply... Biker gangs fighting to the death with spiked flails and sawn-off shotguns... A river filled with animal carcasses... Iron Age Celtic warriors... A gunfight between the Prime Minister and the Earl of Winchilsea... The birth of football as a spectator sport... " ... The Colonel has performed a similar feat here on a slightly smaller scale. Only a very strict interpretation of GNG could find the references fail to demonstrate significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Ruthlessly applying the tightest standards may be appropriate for a harmful BLP or a fringe theory article that might help fraudsters, but seems without justification for such a harmless little gem as route 68. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:33, 7 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.