Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route E8

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. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route E8

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has two external links to primary sources which demonstrate that this bus route does indeed exist, though there are no footnotes.

However, there is no evidence that this bus route 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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep like most of the other London bus routes. Bus routes are a major feature of urban geography, and the history of them is an important part of the local history. Bus routes, unlike bus stops, are relatively stable. (IP removed) 19:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, all of the valuable local history in these articles appears to be unverified original research. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, London is sufficiently well documented that this can easily be corrected, preferably by people with access to local resources. (IP removed) 20:01, 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) 19:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep for now, there is already ongoing discussion on this elsewhere, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#London bus route articles. 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) 22:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I only AFDed 6; I PRODded 13, which you disrupted by removing the PROD without offering any reason to keep the articles. If you persist in disrupting lightweight mechanisms for removing non-notable material, don't accuse anyone else of pointiness. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My reasons for removing the prods were very very clear, if you took the time to read the edit summaries (where it is generally accepted that reasons for PROD removal are located). Jeni ^(talk) 23:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What relevance does that have to this discussion? Jeni ^(talk) 00:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's highly relevant. You object on procedural grounds to AFD, when you have repeatedly disrupted lightweight procedures for removing non-notable material. You can't have it both ways: if you contest PROds on bogus grounds, article will be taken to AFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are bringing up a completely different article which was objected to on different grounds. Tell me again how this is relevant? Jeni ^(talk) 00:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 ) 02:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability offers another way only where there are agreed separate guidelines.

There is a very good practical reason for GNG: that without it, an article can exist only as either original research or as repetition of primary source material. In the case of many of these articles, most of the material is simply unsourced, a situation which is all too common with topics which fail GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Keep The claim to notability here is the hybrid vehicles, which received coverage in the source I just added. I've referenced the other information to londonbusroutes.co.uk for now to provide some form of verification, but I hope to find a more reliable offline source when I have the chance. The hybrids are enough to justify keeping the article anyway. See below Alzarian16 (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You rightly note that article is not independent of the subject, but a further problem is that the press release linked to offers no significant coverage of this or any other bus route: it just lists the E8 as one of five routes to be the first to use hybrid buses. This sort of material (if it's in an independent source) may establish notability of the topic "hybrid buses in London", but not of the individual routes which get a name check in the article. (WP:GNG specifically says that "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention") --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about the lack of significant coverage. I just felt it was worth improving the article to give it a fair hearing before it was deleted, as it's one of few nominated for deletion which I hadn't sourced before the nomination came up. Move to Delete or Redirect depending on result of discussions elsewhere about which is more appropriate. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Disruptive deletion spree made without due diligence per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 74. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF, please. I did indeed follow WP:BEFORE, and if you look above your comment you will see that even the editor who has worked on trying to improve many of these articles agrees that this one should be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete or redirect. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Yet another page full of assumptions of bad faith and disruptive comments. Procedural keep isn't valid because projects don't own articles. No sources, no article.--Crossmr (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. These should be decided on their merits, and while some of the others nominated appear reasonable to me, this one clearly is not due to a lack of independent reliable sources discussing it. Orderinchaos 14:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable third party sources - name drops only. Karanacs (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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) 04:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The system is notable. The routes have to be taken on an individual basis and unless you care to pony up sources to demonstrate significant coverage by reliable third party sources, no it is.--Crossmr (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added a couple more sources. Opinions above which presume lack of notability based upon the lack of sources are thus voided. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those are trivial sources. There isn't remotely significant coverage provided by those. The first source is about the buses. It only mentions they'll run on the route. It doesn't really talk about the route at all. The second source is basically the same thing. Metroline will operate a further five on the E8 route between Ealing Broadway and Brentford. doesn't remotely approach significant coverage. You've been here long enough to know that.--Crossmr (talk) 01:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of both those articles [1][2] is the deployment in London of hybrid buses, a topic which has received enough coverage across various sources to merit a standalone article. A few things stand out about those references:
1. The WP:GNG test of "significant coverage" is explained as: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail. These articles do not directly address the route E8 in detail.
  - The Hounslow Brentford Times article from Dec 2008 is about 25 hybrid buses to be deployed that month, of which five are on the E8 (the 25 were to be followed with another 18 in 2009, on unspecified routes). It namechecks the E8 in the first and last paras, but the article is about the hybrids, not the E8 route; the E8 is the local hook for a London story, also referenced toa primary source (the Dec 2008 Mayor's press release). The Mayor's press release confirms the 25 hybrids-with-18-to-follow
  - The Engineer article from July 2009 namechecks the E8 once, in para 5, where it is the second of two routes mentioned
2. The articles may differ from each other on significant points of fact. The Hounslow Brentford Times article from Dec 2008 says a fleet of 25 hybrids were to be deployed that month, with 5 on the E8. However, The Engineer article from July 2009 is about a trial of 10 buses of a specific type of hybrid, 5 of which go on the E8. However the way that these references have been used in the wikipedia articles conflates those two secondary sources with the mayor's press release, and is used to reference an assertion based in none of the refs: that "first of the hybrid buses appeared in the route in late March 2009" (a point which appears to have been added in a prev edit by Alzerian16)
The result of those two edits is a mess, with stories 7 months apart about difft numbers of buses conflated into one event and given a date of March 2009 which none of them supports. It's an excellent illustration of the risks of synthesising factoids from different sources which do not directly address the topic in detail, so I have removed all this hybrid material from the article and will add a note on the talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The nominator has now started to remove sourced content from this article,[3] presumably to bolster her viewpoint that it should be deleted. Jeni ^(talk) 01:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I did remove the material, but not for the bad faith reasons which you suggest: my edit summary for the diff you posted is "remove synthesis of several sources which assert different points incompatible ways; more details to follow on talk page". See my explanation above, which I was just about to post when there was an edit conflict with your note; and see also Talk:London Buses route E8.
Please assume good faith and read edit the edit summary before making unfounded allegations of disruption. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other articles nominated:

Okip 15:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep per above. Removal of referenced material by nominator, per Jeni, referenced article which meets notability guidelines. Okip 15:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read the article before writing that? I removed the referenced material for reasons explained above and at Talk:London Buses route E8, but even if you look at the version before I removed the inaccuracies, there is not a single reference to significant coverage in an independent reliable source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - while some should definitely be kept, this one was in my opinion the weakest of the entire lot (alongside West Midlands 33) and should be the first to go. Orderinchaos 10:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 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. Dew Kane (talk) 04:31, 4 April 2010 (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.