Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 71


 * 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. There are a couple of observations (discounting the fact that I closeda similar debate as "keep" earlier today). First of all, procedural keeps have been ignored; every article should be debated and judged on its own merits. Second, any votes that make no judgement on the article but on the way this deletion discussion has been opened (from an admin point of view, there has been absolutely no wrong-doing with the method) have been ignored. There has been debate on the referencing, and whether the sourcing is enough to pass WP:N; some put forward as substantial references are not reliable (busesonscreen and londonbusesbyadam). Without these, there is a lack of referencing, and I find the concerns expressed by those voting delete perfectly valid in this regard. Discouting a number of votes I found to be inadequate, I found a consensus to delete this article. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 08:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

London Buses route 71

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

There are adequate references to demonstrate that this bus route exists, and the information in the article is well-sourced in places (though with much unreferenced material), 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) 17:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  --  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  --  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:16, 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) 19:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps discussing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport, where you will see there is currently a discussion about this, would be a good idea before starting to make deletion requests? It makes it all very complicated, especially as, if you look, you will see that the standard procedure for rubbish articles is just to redirect them to List of bus routes in London. Arriva436talk/contribs 19:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of that discussion. After a comment in another AFD on the number of these articles, I just took a look at five or 6 articles on London buses, taking one from the 0-99, one from the #100-#199, and so on ... and found that they all came nowhere near the notability threshold, so I AFDed them. I wish the good folks at WikiProject London Transport success in their cleanup, but it looks to me like it hasn't got very far: 100% of my sample appeared to me to be clearly non-notable.  There are 303 articles in ; are any of them actually notable? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course some of them are notable. Good examples are the bendy bus routes, the Routemaster routes, especially the 159 for example which was the last route to be run by Routemasters. Arriva436<sup style="color:#800080;><b style="color:#800080;">talk</b>/<b style="color:#800080;">contribs</b> 20:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree about the 159 ... and maybe a dozen or so have some possibility of a claim to notability. But I took two random samples and found 90% of them had no claim to notability, and no evidence of it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Procedural keep for now, there is already ongoing discussion on this elsewhere. Jeni  ( talk ) 22:14, 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)
 * 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 am not ignoring that discussion; I am assisting in the process of getting rid of utterly non-notable material.  You offer no arguments whatsoever for keeping any of these articles, and are mass-reverting any PRODs, without even bothering to assess notability.  That's the pointiness: your immediate, blind reversion of any PROD, even of the most non-notable bus routes.  I suggest that you stop trying to disrupt the re,oval of articles on non-notable topics. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is noted in the discussion you claim to be assisting in that we are currently redirecting the non notable routes. Why are you trying to get these articles deleted against the existing process? To be honest, I feel an ANI thread coming up if this continues. (Note: My keep is a procedural keep, I'm making no judgements on notability here). Jeni  ( talk ) 23:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's try again. What exactly is your reason for objecting to the deletion of this article? Do you have nay evidence of notability? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read my original !vote and you'll discover my reason for objecting to the deletion. Not exactly rocket science. Jeni  ( talk ) 23:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's not complicated at all. 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) 00:01, 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)


 * 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 ) 03:06, 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) 03:28, 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 ) 03:06, 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 only 2 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) 03:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Disruptive deletion spree made without due diligence per Articles for deletion/London Buses route 74. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF, please. I did indeed follow WP:BEFORE. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * delete or redirect. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources. If we were just going to have a bunch of people repeating the same bad faith accussations on every page we should have just nominated these together to save them time. None of the above keep arguments are remotely relevant, most disruptive and none address the existing policies or guidelines as required by WP:CONSENSUS.--Crossmr (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Some evidence of notability for this one. (Note I have voted delete for several others.) Orderinchaos 17:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm curious about what you think that evidence is. I see two refs to the bus fansite londonbuses.net, but none to an independent reliable source. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The incident in 1982 documented in the article, if it could be verified from newspapers of the day, would be a reasonable claim to notability for this route. However, as an Australian student, my Factiva access doesn't cover it. Orderinchaos 12:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely you don't seriously mean the "incident" in which a bus driver got past an obstacle without hitting anything??? That's so trivial that it's barely worth mentioning; London bus drivers are skilled people and do that every day of the week. - Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable third party sources - name drops only. Karanacs (talk) 13:27, 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) 04:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Long established route. All info can be sourced. <span style="font-family:Zapfino, Segoe Script;"><b style="color:#FF0000;">Arriva436</b><sup style="color:#800080;><b style="color:#800080;">talk</b>/<b style="color:#800080;">contribs</b> 16:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Well written with a decent history behind the route, most of which has been backed up with useful, reliable sources. <b style="color:#FF7518;">Editor5807</b><sup style="color:#FF7518;">speak 18:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Other articles nominated:
 * Articles for deletion/London Buses route 183
 * Articles for deletion/London Buses route 231
 * Articles for deletion/London Buses route 237
 * Articles for deletion/London Buses route 331
 * Articles for deletion/London Buses route 372
 * Articles for deletion/London Buses route 42
 * Articles for deletion/London Buses route 68
 * Articles for deletion/London Buses route 71
 * Articles for deletion/London Buses route 73
 * Articles for deletion/London Buses route 74
 * Articles for deletion/London Buses route 75
 * Articles for deletion/London Buses route 77
 * Articles for deletion/London Buses route E8
 * Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus route 28
 * Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus route 33
 * Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus route 7
 * Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus routes 51, X51 and 951A
 * Articles for deletion/Capital City Green
 * Articles for deletion/London Buses route 68
 * Articles for deletion/London Buses route 77
 * Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus route 997
 * Okip  15:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

In any case, at this point Col W has demonstrated that he is not actually interested in good faith efforts to examine notability according to the community's long-established guideline WP:GNG: I have just noted how at Articles for deletion/London Buses route 331 he argues for keeping the article because he believes it will become notable in the future. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC) That claim is either a deliberate lie to mislead other editors, or evidence of an inability to tell the difference between one and two. (You may choose to clarify which, but it makes little difference to the outcome). Your own reference to the book lists route 71 as being mentioned on only one page, so you have offered no evidence that the coverage is substantial ... and since the 288-page book covers the history of the bus design and manufacture as well as its deployment on the routes, it is implausible that the average route could have received more than one page of coverage in total. Of course, it may be that some exceptional routes did receive much more detailed coverage, and that route 71 is one of those routes: are you claiming that this the case? And if so, just how much coverage does it give route 71? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * strong keep per above. Extremely well referenced article. Okip   15:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Did you even read the article? The current version has not a single reference to a reliable source independent of the subject, never mind one which gives the topic significant coverage. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Was just about to say. "Extremely well referenced" being a total of 4 reference, one of which could be considered reliable, but is the government site - the local government for every bus route will likely have something on its site, as bus routes are common things, much like my street or my house. Neither of them will ever get an article, but each are just as verifiable.  Aiken   &#9835;   16:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Brown at least one of your articles in this bus purge you have nominated has been speedy closed per WP:SNOW. Other articles, such as Capital City Green has 7 references, and unanimous support for keep (8 editors), and you are still arguing their is no unanimous decision. is completely independent, so please strike this part of the sentence Okip   16:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it even reliable though? It doesn't look it. And still, you write "extremely well referenced" which couldn't be much further from the truth, especially when 3/4 aren't even reliable, and the last one is a passing mention as is standard with bus routes as I explained.  Aiken   &#9835;   16:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Again, there's just nothing here to suggest this is anything more than a run-of-the-mill bus service one might come across every day. No more remarkable than my street or house.  Aiken   &#9835;   16:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete BHG nails it; not one keep !vote has substantively addressed (or redressed) any of her concerns. Eusebeus (talk) 09:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added additional sources and detail to the article. These include the Routemaster Omnibus - a substantial work which devotes a full page to the history of this route.  There is so much detail in this source that I do not have time to do full justice to it today and so have selected some highlights such as its commentary on the infamous Petersham Hole.  The comments of nay-saying editors such as Eusebeus are thus refuted. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The only one of those sources which could remotely be considered as a claim to notability is Routemaster Omnibus, which is indeed a "substantial work". But while it gives substantial coverage to the highly notable bus, it gives only one page to the route 71. Claiming that one page out of a 288-page book is "substantial coverage" makes a mockery of the whole concept of WP:GNG. We might as well say that anything mentioned in print anywhere is "notable".
 * Our guideline states "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content.". That's what we have in these multiple sources and so we're good.  What you should please explain, given that we now have these references, is why you continue to argue for wholesale deletion contrary to our editing policy?  Note that this policy is stronger than a guideline and mandates that we should retain such material which, at the very least, would assist our general coverage of London buses.  Colonel Warden (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Col W, if you are going to post so prolifically in these discussions, please do try to give the impression of having read the notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".  The only source referenced which is both reliable and independent if the subject is Routemaster Omnibus, yet you claim that there care "multiple sources" which pass meet GNG's criteria?
 * Discussion of these sources is not productive when it seems that I am the only one to have consulted them - you'll just have to take my word or buy them yourself. I have added another source in which the service is condemned as "probably the worst in the world".  This is brief but passes the test of significance in that it requires no OR and there are supporting details.  And, as the observation was made in Parliament, it was more than significant, it was important.  Now please address the more important question of policy,  i.e. WP:PRESERVE. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Major bus route in major metropolitan city as these routes are all integral parts of a city's transportation system. Even the basic tenant of WP:NOTABILITY provides for common sense.  As DGG said, this can be expanded and if a consensus of users feels a topic passes WP:GNG, then it does.--Oakshade (talk) 06:03, 6 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.