Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 71: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:18, 2 April 2010 editEditor5807 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users4,372 edits Sign comment.← Previous edit Revision as of 15:46, 3 April 2010 edit undoOkip (talk | contribs)5,318 edits →London Buses route 71Next edit →
Line 46: Line 46:
*'''Keep'''. Long established route. All info can be sourced. <font style="font-family: Zapfino, Segoe Script"><font color="#FF0000">]</font><font color="#800080"><sup>]/]</sup></font></font> 16:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC) *'''Keep'''. Long established route. All info can be sourced. <font style="font-family: Zapfino, Segoe Script"><font color="#FF0000">]</font><font color="#800080"><sup>]/]</sup></font></font> 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. <font color="#FF7518">]</font><font color="#FF7518"><sup>]</sup></font> 18:18, 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. <font color="#FF7518">]</font><font color="#FF7518"><sup>]</sup></font> 18:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
* Other articles nominated:
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
:] 15:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
*'''strong keep''' per above. Extremely well referenced article. ] 15:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:46, 3 April 2010

London Buses route 71

London Buses route 71 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:15, 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 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Procedural keep for now, there is already ongoing discussion on this elsewhere. Jeni 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. --BrownHairedGirl (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 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. --BrownHairedGirl (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 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? --BrownHairedGirl (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 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

What relevance does that have to this discussion? Jeni 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. --BrownHairedGirl (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:28, 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)

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)

  • 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)
    Misplaced Pages: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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Disruptive deletion spree made without due diligence per Misplaced Pages: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. --BrownHairedGirl (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. --BrownHairedGirl (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. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Okip 15:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Categories: