Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 74


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 00:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

London Buses route 74

 * – ( 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. 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) 23:21, 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. Nominator is currently refusing to take part in said discussion, instead choosing to continue to make these pointy nominations. Jeni  ( talk ) 23:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Jeni, you have contested a whole series of PRODs on bus routes without offering any valid grounds for keeping the articles. I am not trying to male any point, just trying to remove non-notable material, and being confronted with wikilawyering opposition. If you disrupt the use of a lightweight mechanism like PROD, don't complain that a an article then gets taken to AFD. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am complaining that you are refusing to take part in an existing discussion on this very subject, instead you are mass AfD'ing articles, when there is already a process of sorting out the notable and non notable ones on the discussion page linked above. That is very pointy if you ask me. Jeni  ( talk ) 23:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What exactly is your reason for objecting to the deletion of this article? Do you have any evidence of notability? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My reason for objecting is procedural, as I said in my first comment. Participate in the discussion (and dare I say it, even help out!) and your input would be much much more useful. Jeni  ( talk ) 23:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop disrupting this use of the deletion process for the very small proportion of the mass of non-notable bus route articles, and you might actually be doing something useful.
 * So, I'll ask again. What exactly is your reason for objecting to the deletion of this article? Do you have any evidence of notability? --23:53, 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 ) 23:55, 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

What relevance does that have to this discussion? Jeni ( talk ) 00:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  --  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:22, 29 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 - — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)


 * 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) 00:19, 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) 04:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I can't for the life of me understand how deleting this article would improve this encyclopedia, which is supposed to be what we are doing here. This is a bus route used by thousands of people every day (I used it myself in my younger days when I lived in Inner London) and the content is clearly verifiable and non-contentious. I note that many other similar articles have been nominated for deletion, but I don't have the time or inclination to comment on each one individually. I suppose that means that the nominator wins the war of attrition by being willing to spend more effort on destroying content than I am on preserving it. Can't we just concentrate on building this encyclopedia, and, when necessary, getting rid of articles about garage bands and the like, rather than destroying information that is part of our mission. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A practical way of overcoming vexatious nomination spam is to ban their creator and then the nominations can all be speedily terminated as the work of a banned editor. Something of the sort was done with TTN iirc. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So ban the people you disagree with? Is that really what you're suggesting? Again, Colonel Warden, there is nothing disruptive about nominating articles for deletion that actually may need deleting.  Aiken   &#9835;   23:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at the references you have added, and see no sign whatsoever that any of them provide any substantial coverage. For example, from one of the references you managed to extract the information that "The route includes Baker Street"; from another you produce the factoid that "It is used by London commuters". Fancy that, eh? A route running into central London is used by commuters? Sorry, but the only "frivolous" thing I see here is your bizarre assertion that a passing mention is "substantial coverage". --- Brown HairedGirl (talk) •
 * Speedy Keep The nomination is false as a quick search shows that this route has great notability, being noted in numerous sources for its use of the Bus Electronic Scanning Indicator. We also observe that the nominator has failed to discuss the article at its talk page. nor does there seem to have been any effort to consider alternatives to deletion.  It is thus appears that our deletion process has not been followed and so the nomination seems disruptive, as noted by other editors above. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how this meets the speedy keep guideline. What most certainly is disruptive is copying and pasting the same message onto several AfDs without even considering the article in question, but rather making unfounded allegations about the nominator.  Aiken   &#9835;   23:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:SK: "obviously frivolous or vexatious nominations". Colonel Warden (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But it isn't obviously either of those things. Far from frivolous, at least one other user has voted to delete, so it shows a discussion is necessary. And as for vexatious, well, I think people need to remember that the contributions they make belong to the encyclopedia, and should not take things personally. Again, I think making unfounded allegations about the intent of the nominator is both disruptive and rude. You're free to comment, but a productive comment would be one that actually discusses whether the article is notable or not. Thanks.  Aiken   &#9835;   23:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Colonel Warden, this is neither a frivolous or a vexatious nomination. Have you ever read WP:AGF and WP:NPA? Try to comment on content, not contributors. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is frivolous in that a quick search immediately produces numerous substantial sources as one would expect for a major transportation route through the centre of London. It is vexatious in that the nomination has been made without preparing the ground properly per WP:BEFORE.  The article's issues should first be discussed at its talk page and/or by tagging and this has not been done.  Alternatives to deletion should be considered such as merger into higher-level articles such as London bus or London Transport.  These actions are mandated by our deletion process to minimise the disruption which attends AFD.  When these failure occur en masse, the nuisance is multiplied because the size of the remedial task becomes daunting and so there is a chilling effect. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Substantial sources"?????????

(contribs) You have denounced the nomination "as frivolous and vexatious", and claim to have found sources which meet that test of "substantial coverage". So where is this "substantial coverage" you have found? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That details may seem obvious is unimportant. The routing down Baker Street is significant as numerous sources take the trouble to say this.  The usage by commuters is relevant to those who know nothing of London.  I expect that, as the topic develops, we will be able to report the comparative usage by other types of passenger - shoppers, tourists &c.  Such aspects seem important to  a good understanding of the topic.  That the article is a work-in-progress and has not yet been fully fleshed out is not a reason to delete, per our editing policy.  Idle criticism is not helpful - please see WP:INSPECTOR. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * CW, idle abuse of good faith editors is not helpful either, so please try to focus on the issue at stake. The decision to be made here is whether or not to delete the article. The test here is not whether the text is complete, but whether the topic meets WP:GNG, for which we need "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
 * Note that the similar case of Articles for deletion/London Buses route 73 has now been speedily kept. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - not notable enough for a standalone article, sources are basically lists that contain this route. --John Nagle (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There seems to be enough to justify keeping this one, although I don't agree with the "Disruptive nomination" viewpoint. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep useful article that meets GNG as long as its interpreted generously. On the disurptive view, have to agree that refusing to take part in discussions while instead making pointy noms for deletion is not ideal conduct on a collaborative project. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable third party sources - name drops only. Karanacs (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * At last count you'd added this exact comment to 14 London Bus Route AfDs. I can understand it in many cases, but it doesn't seem to apply here. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Copy and paste vote, he wont have actually looked at the articles he is commenting against. Jeni  ( talk ) 14:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Jeni, isn't that just what you did with your procedural keeps?  Aiken   &#9835;   14:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes it is, however the biggest difference is that I wasn't commenting on the articles, as I made clear. Jeni  ( talk ) 14:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree, except that his/her vote at WP:Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus route 1 (Birmingham) actually suggests keeping one of the articles! Alzarian16 (talk) 14:12, 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. Arriva436talk/contribs 16:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Appears to have a rich history, with sources for all the information provided. Editor5807speak 18:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * strong keep or in the alternative, merge, per editor5807 and arriva346. Thanks. Okip  16:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Colonel Warden's find proves notability.   D r e a m Focus  19:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps someone can cite for me some notable London bus routes, and explain how they are different from route 74. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:36, 3 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.