Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 70

Add links
Source: 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 delete. Contacting all participants of a previous discussion is not improper canvassing, in my view, so there's no need to doubt the validity of this consensus.  Sandstein  20:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 70

London Buses route 70 (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)

Article deleted before on notability. Nothing has appeared to have changed from before.

Dragon 12:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Dragon 12:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Shouldn't
Dragon 13:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Thankyou
Dragon 13:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Just to clarify, are you suggesting we keep the article as it is, or are you suggesting that it be redirected to List of bus routes in London? It's not clear from your comment. If you're suggesting that the article be kept, how does this meet any of the notability guidelines? Jeni (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am going for Keep because, while some routes may not meet the notability guidelines, they are encyclopaedic. They do have some facts on them. For example a fact can be "Did you know that, after a successful consultation, route 70 was extended to Chiswick Business Park?". People come to Wikipedia to find out information. I know this because sometimes when i am researching things for schoolwork and revision, I view the pages here. And i have seen people I know look at Wikipedia when they want to find out something.After all, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Plus, all information on there is supported by reliable sources, unlike on some where they have just fansites as sources. Bottom line is, I would like it to be kept because it is encyclopaedic. The reason why i said you could redirect it is because an AfD did not need to be opened i the nominator thought it wasn't notable, he could have just reverted back to your initial redirect. I was going to edit my initial comment but your question beat me to it.
talk) 14:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
So, if my understanding is correct, you ascertain that because the 70 was extended to Chiswick Business Park makes it notable enough for inclusion? I question that logic.
There is a wikia dedicated to London bus routes where this information is better suited. Jeni (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, that was an example. There are a number of facts on that page, i just included 1 as an example.
talk) 14:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete - I can't see that there is anything about London bus routes which gives them an inherent notability to have an article in their own right. For one thing, unlike railway lines, there are a lot more of them, and usually a lot less to say about them. In the usual way, we'd be looking for independent secondary sources and coverage, of which I'm not seeing anything. JMWt (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is sufficiently notable to warrant retention, and aside from the 1st paragraph is now all cited. This seems more a case of I just don't like it. Given the wide array of editors that have contributed to the various London bus route articles, there seems to be at least a degree of interest.
Given that these AFDs seem to appear randomly, perhaps a more encompassing discussion at
London Buses route 390, have been redirected, while relatively minor outer suburban routes, e.g. London Buses route K5, remain. 11Expo (talk) 06:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Do you care to expand on how this route passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines, or are you !voting on the basis of
I like it? Jeni (talk) 08:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Dragon 07:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I pinged you further up, didn't it work @
Dragon 07:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Nordic Dragon - Sorry that's what I meant & nope, It happens everywhere .... sometimes you're pinged and sometimes you're not..... –Davey2010Talk 12:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete due to lack of significant coverage, with no objection to a redirect if desired. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG, WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:NOTGUIDE. None of the references apart from the primary source TfL results actually mention this route. We do not keep articles on every run-of-the-mill bus route.Charles (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I cannot even find an assertion of notability on the page. It's a bus route. Buses run on it. Period. The three guidelines Charlesdrakew references above all apply. At most a redirect to [List of bus routes in London]]. Onel5969 TT me 18:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Some bus routes are notable, but most are
    run-of-the-mill, and this is one of the non-notable ones. Reyk YO! 19:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete as questionably solid for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect to List of bus routes in London. Non-notable, NOTDIR, NOTTRAVEL, NOTGUIDE. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 21:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—this fails
    WP:GNG. There is no demonstration of "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject" to warrant a stand-alone article. Imzadi 1979 → 00:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per Class455fan1. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTDIRECTORY, NOTTRAVEL and NOTGUIDE have no application to this article. That policy would likely forbid the inclusion of a timetable or ticket prices, but not the sort of information in the article, which is mainly about tenders and the location of the route. I am going to suggest that this page be kept as a standalone article because the Transport for London sources are plainly suitable, the information they include belongs in the encyclopedia, and merging it into the list of routes would be less convenient than keeping it apart, as it would make the list much longer and therefore harder to navigate. The TFL sources are independent because they do not actually operate the buses; a private company does that. As government sources on a relatively uncontroversial topic, I expect they will be objective. James500 (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC) For the avoidance of doubt, I should clarify that AVOIDSPLIT allows us, for organisational reasons, to spin off list material without regard to notability. I should also point out that the word "cruft" is the worst non argument possible that basically adds up to "I don't like it". In any event, the location of the route, as a line on a map, falls within the scope of our gazetteer function and, as for the tenders, I expect that our readers will be interested in what is being done with 'public money' (indeed, that is why the process is done openly) and in who is operating the buses. I should also point out that Wikia is not a WMF project, so we cannot say "better on Wikia" as that would be COI. We would have to point to a WMF owned project. James500 (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't agree more.
talk) 10:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Couldn't disagree more - I was involved in setting up Roaders' Digest - the SABRE Wiki and doing some of the coding, which I know was done in part due to editors frustrated with WP. Yet all that did not stop me from getting North Circular Road, amongst others, to GA status on here. I have shown it is possible to work on multiple projects on the internet and gain respect from all of them simply by acknowledging other sites are okay and do valid things. Hells bells, even Wikipediocracy talks sense more than people give it credit for. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that Wikipedians can't participate on other projects. I said that AfD can't be used to advance the interests of non-WMF projects at the expense of WMF projects by deliberately handing them our article traffic (ie the search engine traffic that comes with the content) on a plate by deleting our content for their benefit. James500 (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Says who?Charles (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closing editor There may be a case of bad faith

canvassing that has influenced the voting. The article was flagged for deletion on 15 February. After 3 days, about 6 editors had responded with varying opinions. On the latter date User:Jeni canvassed 12 editors [1] etc, on the basis that they had previously expressed an opinion on London bus route 403's deletion discussion
. Within 24 hours, about 8 of the pinged editors responded, largely in agreement with her option. Given that these editors had been active in the period between the article being nominated and being pinged, appears they may have only voted as a result of being canvassed.

In fairness to the editor, she did ping editors who had voted both for and against on that discussion. Nevertheless, I don't think it would be too cynical to suggest that the editor was reasonably confident that the net result would be more votes in line with her preferred option which could be interpreted as

votestacking, given that the canvassing did occur at a time when it appeared the result was not going overwhelmingly in favour of deletion. Or put another way, had the London Buses route 403 vote resulted in a keep, I doubt the canvassing would have occurred. I have no problems with being on the losing side of the debate, but it should be a fair contest, which this may not have been. 11Expo (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I had seen this on my watchlist anyway,but I sometimes give some time for editors to produce any significant secondary sources for notability before opting for deletion. I believe Jeni was acting in good faith.Charles (talk) 09:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was one of those canvassed and consider that this was quite improper. There have been many deletion discussions for London bus routes over the years and so to canvass the opinions of only one such discussion was tendentious. It seems fairly clear that London buses are generally quite notable because they are a major historical institution for that city and there is a fair amount of coverage out there -- books, magazines, societies, museums, &c. The main issue is the level of detail in our coverage and that's not really a deletion question as it's best resolved by ordinary editing, merger, and the like. Andrew D. (talk) 09:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Take your tinfoil hat off and
WP:CAN
(The guideline which you cited), specifically the "Appropriate Notification" section:
On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:
       Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Do not send notices to too many users, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them.
It's unreasonable to expect me to go through every London Bus route AfD, especially since the discussion I used appeared to be the only one within the last year. Even the other section you quote,
WP:VOTESTACK, backs up what I did as appropriate. If you were to actually read the notices that I left people, you wouldn't be assuming bad faith. And just FYI, I will do exactly the same thing at the next similar AfD. Jeni (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't think Jeni intended to canvass, and I saw these notifications appearing on my Watchlist. What she did was allowable under
talk) 13:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Andrew admitted they were canvassed. I knew this might be unintentional but that's why it was a problem.
t@lk to M£ 13:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Please do take this to
WP:ANI, I'm that confident that no wrong was done. In fact, Wikicology, you don't need to wait for 11Expo, you can start the thread there yourself! I'll even start it for you if you wish? I'm a big fan of outside comment. Jeni (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
It's not about getting you blocked. In fact, I will oppose your block in any case related to this. My biggest concern is about
t@lk to M£ 13:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:CAN
is to read the page. Either way, I await the notification that you've started an ANI thread, as you're so concerned.
Please, in really simple terms, spell out which aspect of
WP:CAN I have violated? Then we can all move on and I can finally eat this goddamn chocolate cake that's been staring at me for the last hour! Jeni (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Damnit why did my talkpage have to be diffed!, Anyway personally I don't believe Jeni canvassed, She did say "contributed" (and as a whole the message was neutrally worded) which as far as I know is fine....., Everyone who goes to others talkpages usually says something along the lines of "you contributed at this RFC X or AFD X" so I don't see how this could be construed as canvassing, Either way I don't think it was. –Davey2010Talk 15:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In either case, I never insinuated that she did canvassed and I don't see this as a violation of
t@lk to M£ 16:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Editors who !vote Keep or Delete can still leave messages, Had it been worded to say something like "You voted delete at X,Please vote delete her too!" then yeah but it wasn't.... anyway we're all going around in circles so probably best we all just move on from the issue, (Thanks for indenting - I'm absolutely terrible with indenting everything!). –Davey2010Talk 16:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No offence, but this is going in circles. Either take it to
WP:CAN or drop it, thanks. Jeni (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Jeni, I usually try as much as possible to avoid conflicts with other editors. I won't comment on this any further. Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia. Cheers!
t@lk to M£ 16:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 22 February 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_70&oldid=1087821612"