Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/903 (PTV Bus)

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 redirect to SmartBus or a section thereof. There is consensus that sourcing isn't sufficient nor independent to establish notability for the bus. Star Mississippi 02:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

903 (PTV Bus)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

)

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

This article about a bus route does not have the significant coverage in multiple independent

notability. The use of this bus route for locally made electric buses garnered some coverage, but it is more about electric buses than the route. Whpq (talk) 03:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

your edits made here are clearly unconstructive it will be best for this page if you leave it alone. You will be welcomed to give it edits that will improve this page. The afd will be replaced with an afi as judged by your last edit your clear goal to to delete this page NotOrrio (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really an appropriate or effective way of trying to establish WP:Consensus, if this is too personal for you it might be best to take a step back and return with a clearer head. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Went though the sources and checked them out. I would say this appears to be almost notable but I'm honestly on the fence.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG ?
Source assessment table:
Department of Transport	Government Website	Government Website	~ Only notes that the line is there and a quick blur about it and the other lines	~ Partial
The Driven	Coverage of this article and of others appears to be independent. There is invited content but it's labeled and there is a transparent policy on this as well as the cost for advertising in their newsletter	Most coverage on the site is reviews about EVs but there are also articles with coverage on topics around EVs and the community	The article is only about the bus route and the electric buses on it	✔ Yes
Kinetic	Press release from the company that is incharge of putting in the electric buses	Press release from the company that is incharge of putting in the electric buses	Although there is talk about them taking over the bus system there is no mention of the line	✘ No
Public Transport Victoria	Government Website	Government Website	~ The information it provides is accurate but it is not targeted at this line or a group of lines near it	~ Partial
Moovit	~ Mobility as a service company owned by intel, reposting public information	? Can't really tell other than this is just the site for an app	Page is only coverage of the 903 route	? Unknown
Australasian Bus and Coach	Appears to be an industry publication but other articles appear balanced	Includes a named author and interviews with the managing director of Transdev	~ This one was hard, the main topic is the trail of the electric buses but Route 903 is important to this pilot program because it's the largest orbital bus rote in the southern hemisphere.	~ Partial
Premier of Victoria	Government press release	Government press release	~ Mentions the 903 as part of some new electric buses	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this assessment. These bus routes are government run, so the Department of Transport, Public Transport Victoria, and the Premier of Victoria are in no way independent as asserted in this source assessment table. The Bus and Coach article mentions route 903. It's a single sentence; two if we are being very generous and that is hardly rising to even partial significant coverage. Moovit is a bus route and schedule. The site is a directory of such routes. There is nothing unknown about whether it contributes to notability. It flat out does not. The only source that moves the notability bar a smidge is the Driven article.

This is what the source assessment table should look like setting aside all the sources you skipped.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG ?
Source assessment table:
Department of Transport	Government Website	Government Website	Only notes that the line is there and a quick blur about it and the other lines	✘ No
The Driven	Coverage of this article and of others appears to be independent. There is invited content but it's labeled and there is a transparent policy on this as well as the cost for advertising in their newsletter	Most coverage on the site is reviews about EVs but there are also articles with coverage on topics around EVs and the community	~ The article is only about the bus route and the electric buses on it	~ Partial
Kinetic	Press release from the company that is incharge of putting in the electric buses	Press release from the company that is incharge of putting in the electric buses	Although there is talk about them taking over the bus system there is no mention of the line	✘ No
Public Transport Victoria	Government Website	Government Website	The information it provides is accurate but it is not targeted at this line or a group of lines near it	✘ No
Moovit	Mobility as a service company owned by intel, reposting public information	Can't really tell other than this is just the site for an app	Site is a directory	✘ No
Australasian Bus and Coach	Appears to be an industry publication but other articles appear balanced	Includes a named author and interviews with the managing director of Transdev	Just a mention	✘ No
Premier of Victoria	Government press release	Government press release	Mentions the 903 as part of some new electric buses	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

-- Whpq (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I posted there were seven sources Special:Diff/1117716600. Unless I've missed something here, if so if you could please show me so I would greatly appreciate it. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misread the timestamps. -- Whpq (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since the table was published post I have added additional sources including 2 pages from an independant victorian transport article. In addition the original kinetic article posted was to back up the was there to back up the section "Since 31 January 2022, this route has been operated by bus operator Kinetic Melbourne." NotOrrio (talk) 02:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

also it is possible to use news articles to back up the information collected from kinetic NotOrrio (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of what you added is useful for establishing notability, Some guy's blog isn't a reliable source, and Kinetic is contracted to run this bus route so is not an independent source. -- Whpq (talk) 03:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to
WP:GNG, requires significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Bus timetables are not an acceptable sources and Kinetic is a primary source.Dan arndt (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
a bus timetable is a reliable sorce for determing what stops the bus route serves, to back it up for there were two sources for this a primary source (PTV) and a secondary Source (Moovit) NotOrrio (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know one of the arguments to avoid using in deletion is to not mention other articles but I want to show that stop information used as a source for where the bus serves is the norm for wikipeida bus route pages for example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Buses_route_1&direction=next&oldid=983282445 uses the source https://tfl.gov.uk/bus/route/1 for the section current route. NotOrrio (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bus timetables are an acceptable source though it's important to include the date of the timetable as they are subject to change. That being said, they don't help establish notability. But they are an acceptable source. Garuda3 (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bus timetables are not independent of the subject, nor are they substantial coverage of it. Basically a list of times and locations. Oaktree b (talk) 03:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 06:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dr Vulpes' source analysis above. The bus route doesn't have to be the primary topic of an article for it to count as significant coverage. Garuda3 (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you agreeing with the assessment that the government responsible for the bus system is an independent source? Which specific articles establish notability and why? -- Whpq (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's... exactly the opposite of what
WP:SIGCOV says. Now you're just making stuff up. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG ?
Source assessment table:
Department of Transport	Government Website	Government Website	~ Only notes that the line is there and a quick blur about it and the other lines	~ Partial
The Driven	Coverage of this article and of others appears to be independent. There is invited content but it's labeled and there is a transparent policy on this as well as the cost for advertising in their newsletter	Most coverage on the site is reviews about EVs but there are also articles with coverage on topics around EVs and the community	The article is only about the bus route and the electric buses on it	✔ Yes
Kinetic	Press release from the company that is incharge of putting in the electric buses	Press release from the company that is incharge of putting in the electric buses	Although there is talk about them taking over the bus system there is no mention of the line	✘ No
Public Transport Victoria	Government Website	Government Website	The information it provides is accurate but it is not targeted at this line or a group of lines near it, updated the source kept on redirecting to the ptv timetable page now redirects to the 903 service information page on the ptv website	✔ Yes
Moovit	~ Mobility as a service company owned by intel, reposting public information	Many sources including community feedback suggest that moovit is reliable and uses real time information	Page is only coverage of the 903 route	~ Partial
Australasian Bus and Coach	Appears to be an industry publication but other articles appear balanced	Includes a named author and interviews with the managing director of Transdev	~ This one was hard, the main topic is the trail of the electric buses but Route 903 is important to this pilot program because it's the largest orbital bus rote in the southern hemisphere.	~ Partial
Premier of Victoria	Government press release	Government press release	~ Mentions the 903 as part of some new electric buses , two sources were from this source the second one does have partial coverage as although it doesnt mention the route it does mention the section that was referenced	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I have updated Dr_vuples citation table as there was a problem with the ptv source which caused it to redirect to https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/timetables/ however it now redirects to https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/route/13690/903-altona-mordialloc/. NotOrri ^(talk) 5:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Redirect to
Smartbus#Routes per Whqp's excellent source analysis. Does not meet GNG. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Per Dr Vuples source assesment analysis. Although some sources may not be reliable there are enough reliable sources for this page to be considerd notable NotOrrio (talk) 5:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Redirect per nom. Just another run of the mill bus route that doesn't require special treatment with its own article. Ajf773 (talk) 08:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a topic deserves its own article isnt a justifiable reason to delete or change and article to redirect. If you think that it is by your logic you should also suggest redirect the 100s wikipedia pages that are based on a single bus route. NotOrrio (talk) 10:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a topic deserves its own article is exactly the reason why we would delete or redirect. -- Whpq (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What? That doesn't make any sense at all.
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 02:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have 3 different source assessment tables that aren't in agreement with each other so I'm going to relist this discussion for another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Government websites aren't independent of the subject and we have no media covering the route. Almost appears promotional. Oaktree b (talk) 03:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would you consider a redirect to the Smartbus article where this route is listed? -- Whpq (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Oaktree b (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
alternative to deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
Smartbus#Routes Lightburst (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2022 (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.