Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 152

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 as another week has suggested Keep is in fact the outcome here (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 152

[edit]
London Buses route 152 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable bus route Nordic Nightfury 09:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 09:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 09:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. I only managed to find one online article that the bus route is the subject of. It is unlikely to be the subject of offline sources such as those from the London Omnibus Traction Society.   Tentinator   11:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing remarkable about this route. Lists of references about contract transfers doesn't establish notability. Ajf773 (talk) 04:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent -- We eliminated many bus route articles several years ago, but left at least some of the London ones, because they had a significant stability and duration. We should either delete them all or none, or some but only according to some agreed criterion. I might well vote for them all to be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the bus route has been around since at least 1936 as this revision of the article shows. There may be other bits from that revision that could be extracted and sourced. Generally speaking bus routes are significant, permanent parts of cities, which tend to be consistent and not often changed. London bus routes are well discussed in a variety of books; and normally individual bus routes are discussed in local papers etc. when there are major changes as can be seen in the revision of the article I have linked to. There is a small trickle of bus routes nominated for deletion every-so-often; the main argument of those voting delete are similar every time, thus there should be a large scale deletion nomination articles of such bus articles where there is actually significant community input as opposed to the same editors popping up every time. Delete all, or establish a notability criteria as this 'whack a mole' approach to deletion of these articles are inconsistent and ultimately overall harming the encyclopedia- an article that could be deleted one day could be kept the next depending on the editors that show up to the deletion discussion. Edit: oh and more sources. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: since I voted to keep this article, significant progress has been made to source and restore the historically valuable information linked to in the diff above, and as such, my keep vote not only still applies, but I am yet more affirmative in my opinion that this article should be kept. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Nothing of encyclopedic interest here.Charles (talk) 09:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Per DGG and Jcc. And also due to the fact that more sourced information has been found and added. There also needs to be more consistency rather than nominating bus route articles for deletion in the first place. There is also no need for a deletion discussion as the article can be redirected if believed that it is not a notable route (but this has some sourced information, unlike some others which I have redirected without the need of a discussion). All bus routes should be notable IMO, as they are an integral part of a city. Class455 (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Class455, can you please advise as to which part of Wikipedia:Speedy keep applies here? Jeni (talk) 11:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict). A small bit of Part 2c applies. IIRC, The last three London bus articles nominated for deletion were given the same reason why they should be deleted and have all been kept. But the main reason is that I'm sick and tired of seeing bus route articles being nominated for deletion without any attempt to find sources to prove notability when some are available, its time these discussions stopped and we actually did something to improve the articles rather than hinder them! Unless there is actually something wrong with them (something that meets the speedy deletion criteria), which isn't the case here. We should start a discussion at WT:LT or at Wikiproject Buses and create a drive to improve the quality of bus route articles. Class455 (talk) 12:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The last 3[2][3][4] all closed as delete? And in all 3, you !voted delete. Do I detect that you perhaps have a bit of bias towards London articles here? WP:SPEEDY doesn't apply here, please strike out 'speedy'. Note: This comment was made before Class455 edited their initial comment in an attempt to make me look stupid.[5] Jeni (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean non-London bus routes discussions. I don't have a bias towards London Bus routes, even though I live in Greater London, as I have myself redirected a few routes for lack of notability rather than nominating them for deletion, and voted to redirect London Buses route 320. Also, I will not strike "speedy" out as I am entitled to my opinion. And I will keep on !voting "speedy keep" until something is done to address the problem we clearly have. At the moment, I've got more important things to do, but next week, I should be able to start a discussion as I'm on Christmas break, unless someone else does. Class455 (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since the end of February 2016, Jeni, you have commented on the deletion of 57 bus routes and voted to delete 56 of them. "Do I detect a bit of bias" here? Don't call the kettle black. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And yet again more content has been found and referenced. Even more of a reason why I'm !voting speedy keep. Class455 (talk) 13:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to this source it is a self-published fansite and not a reliable source for Wikipedia.Charles (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd actually consider that a reliable source, I've just seen it. It has maps and timetables extracted/scanned from older timetables and there are pictures to back up the evidence. I don't see why not. Some "self published fansites" can be reliable. If you don't think so, WP:RSN is this way. Class455 (talk) 12:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter what you think. Wikipedia does not accept self-published sources as reliable.Charles (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The website in question displays scanned in timetables. It is the reliability of the scanned London Transport timetables/Red Books sources that matters, not that of the website which is hosting it. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like copyright violation by the website owner then. Copying the timetables into another site does not make them a secondary source.Charles (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am led to believe that there is nothing wrong with the usage of primary sources to prove direct claims- in this article, the use of a primary source (a London Transport timetable) to prove that the bus route ran every 20 minutes in 1962 is allowed. Not that I think information like that is particularly relevant, but it's not trying to be used as a secondary source. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~Yes, if we need that information the primary source can be cited directly. What this secondary self-published site does not do is contribute to establishing notability of the topic. It is not significant or reliable coverage to meet WP:GNG.Charles (talk) 09:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without reading it I very much doubt The Fundamental Principles of Road Passenger Transport Operation is written specifically about this route as would be required to contribute to establishing notability.Charles (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are completely missing the point here. For a subject to meet WP:GNG there need to be secondary sources written specifically about it, not just mentioning it as part of a wider topic. And "Try to fix problems" only applies to content appropriate to an encyclopedia, which is determined by WP:GNG, which has not been shown to be met for this subject.Charles (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GNG states, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."  So, significant coverage can be as little as one sentence at a time, in numerous sources, and satisfy WP:GNG.  Nor is WP:N a content guideline, with an exception for involving lists.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (also keep Route 109). I haven't followed the discussions regarding the bus route articles that actually have been deleted (I just stumbled over these two), but if they can be properly referenced, I do not see a problem in (some of) them being resurrected. However, as a general note, if someone knows about books, journals, or other references that are not online, please cite them in the articles at the appropriate places. There need not be a whole book dedicated to a topic, but there should be a chapter or a major section. Also, if you find information in an article that does not seem to be properly referenced, please tag it instead of deleting it. --Schlosser67 (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are some books available, particularly from enthusiast websites which sells them (such as Ian Allan) and museums such as the London Transport Museum or the London Bus Museum in Brooklands about this bus route, and others. Class455 (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- the article appears to be reasonably well sourced at this point and provides relevant information one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While it might be difficult to believe for some, but a lot of these bus routes and transportation infrastructure are encyclopedic topics and the combination of all the coverage in the sourcing demonstrates that. --Oakshade (talk) 03:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/London_Buses_route_152&oldid=1138032482"