Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 75


 * 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 - there's certainly no consensus to delete this, and that's unlikely to change. I suppose it may be debatable as to whether there's a "consensus to keep", but it is evident that you could afd this 25 times and no consensus to delete will emerge. Looks like the considered position (unless something major changes) is that articles with such fairly low-notability but solid verification get kept. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

London Buses route 75

 * – ( 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. 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) 23:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  --  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  --  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:19, 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 ) 23:20, 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 make any point, just trying to remove non-notable material, and am being confronted with wikilawyering opposition from you. If you disrupt the use of a lightweight mechanism like PROD, don't complain that an article then gets taken to AFD. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:29, 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)
 * Jeni, I AFDed 6 articles I found in a first sample, and then PRODded 13 I found in a second sample. You reverted all the AFDs on sight, without any remotely plausible grounds for keeping the articles, so I will now bring those PRODs to AFD. That will take time, and after I have finished that I will see whether I have time for the discussion.  If you actually want a discussion, stop disrupting the cleanup by your pointy removal of all PRODs when there are no grounds for keeping the article. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yet you seem to think that there is some sort of urgency in all of this? Why must you be AfDing right now? What is stopping you from taking part in this discussion? Why are you refusing to redirect articles, like has been done with (probably about 50 or so) London articles already? I'm known for my ruthlessness when it comes to getting rid of bus route articles, but I can't be doing with people being disruptive. Jeni  ( talk ) 23:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no urgency: AFD discussions last for 7 days, so take your time.
 * Why do you object to deletion of articles on non-notable topics?
 * Instead of allowing the community to assess the notability of articles, you are disrupting the deletion process. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I object to you disrupting the existing discussions. Jeni ( talk ) 00:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Those discussions can continue. There is no disruption of them. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:13, 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) 00:19, 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. And I do think that trying to preempt a general discussion by multiple AFDS is not a good way to handle things--it makes discussion harder and increases the chance of arbitrary and inconsistent results. ditto about repeated asking people here for explanations  do not have the same opinion as oneself. If people look at these articles and decide that they want to keep them, that makes a practical policy of exception to the GNG. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 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) 03:35, 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) 03:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant coverage here, here, here and, more substantially but less reliably, here. Timetable available here. Together these seem to be enough to verify the article and meet WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Only two of those sources are both reliable and independent of the subject.
 * The croydontoday story is about bus drivers parking disruptively outside a depot. The problem arise out of route 75 operations being moved there, but it's really an article about the Beddington Lane depot, rather than about route 75.
 * The sex assaults on bus 75 story is more directly about the bus route, but it's still marginal: a short article, which is substantially about the attacks rather than the route. That article suggests to me that the attacks might be a notable topic, rather than that the bus route is notable, because it feels like a WP:BIO1E issue (where the general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Disruptive deletion spree made without due diligence per Articles for deletion/London Buses route 74. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 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) 23:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * delete or redirect. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources. If someone wants to keep this article they might want to start assuming good faith and provide actual sources.--Crossmr (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone did, me. I've repeatedly stated that I have no problem with the AfD nominations, and I provided links to five potential online sources. Many of these were proved not to show notability, so I wasn't especially successful, but I dislike the fact that you use Colonel Warden's comment as the basis for a general comment on the behaviour of Keep voters. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, per DGG and Alzarian. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:17, 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)
 * 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) 04:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I have started the process of sourcing from the many volumes of reliable sources which document the history of this route in detail. Comments above which are based upon the lack of sources are thus obsolete. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:41, 5 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.