Colonel Warden (talk | contribs) →London Buses route E8: on sources |
|||
Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
*'''Keep''' all information contained in this article is verifiable. The majority of London bus routes are notable, and the system is notable. [[User:Dew Kane|Dew Kane]] ([[User talk:Dew Kane|talk]]) 04:30, 2 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. [[User:Dew Kane|Dew Kane]] ([[User talk:Dew Kane|talk]]) 04:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC) |
||
*: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.--[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] ([[User talk:Crossmr|talk]]) 14:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC) |
*: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.--[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] ([[User talk:Crossmr|talk]]) 14:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment''' I have added a couple more sources. Opinions above which presume lack of notability based upon the lack of sources are thus voided. [[User:Colonel Warden|Colonel Warden]] ([[User talk:Colonel Warden|talk]]) 23:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:36, 2 April 2010
London Buses route E8
- London Buses route E8 (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)
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)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
What relevance does that have to this discussion? Jeni (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Delete. Article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable third party sources - name drops only. Karanacs (talk) 13:30, 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) 04:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- 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)