600:
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,
385:, 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. --
931:
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
668:
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
599:
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,
651:
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
408:
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
955:
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:
1014:
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
883:
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.
498:
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.
695:
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
424:
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.
1220:
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.
1128:
458:
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.
781:
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
155:
294:
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.
965:
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
1118:
1113:
1123:
846:
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.--
803:. 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.
626:
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. --
563:– 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.
913:
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:
581:. 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.--
1068:
1063:
1058:
1053:
1048:
1143:
1138:
1103:
1098:
1093:
1088:
1083:
1078:
1073:
730:
228:
969:
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. --
447:
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).
1133:
149:
110:
754:, 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. --
532:
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. --
262:
1204:
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.
344:. 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. --
362:
669:
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. (
115:
413:
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.
83:
78:
87:
948:
928:
909:
956:
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)
186:
This article has two external links to primary sources which demonstrate that this bus route does indeed exist, though there are no footnotes.
70:
1194:
1033:
981:
766:
685:
638:
544:
511:
471:
437:
397:
280:
246:
212:
328:
Fortunately, London is sufficiently well documented that this can easily be corrected, preferably by people with access to local resources.
365:. These AfD's certianly don't help the process users are currently going through to determine which articles are notable and which aren't.
865:
I have added a couple more sources. Opinions above which presume lack of notability based upon the lack of sources are thus voided.
17:
170:
832:
all information contained in this article is verifiable. The majority of London bus routes are notable, and the system is notable.
521:
You are bringing up a completely different article which was objected to on different grounds. Tell me again how this is relevant?
137:
933:
1165:
per above. Removal of referenced material by nominator, per Jeni, referenced article which meets notability guidelines.
1174:
Did you even read the article before writing that? I removed the referenced material for reasons explained above and at
197:
1245:
131:
36:
1230:
1208:
1199:
1169:
1155:
1038:
1005:
986:
897:
874:
855:
841:
824:
807:
791:
771:
742:
713:
690:
663:
611:
590:
572:
549:
527:
516:
493:
476:
453:
442:
419:
402:
371:
353:
315:
285:
251:
217:
52:
1175:
1016:
74:
127:
1190:
1029:
977:
762:
681:
634:
540:
507:
467:
433:
393:
276:
242:
208:
49:
1244:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
870:
738:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1021:
Please assume good faith and read edit the edit summary before making unfounded allegations of disruption. --
409:
for notability, adding references where needed and redirecting where notability isn't there. I see this as a
177:
616:
1205:
804:
382:
815:. Article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable third party sources - name drops only.
586:
349:
311:
66:
58:
1183:
1022:
970:
755:
709:
674:
659:
627:
568:
533:
500:
460:
426:
386:
269:
235:
201:
622:
There is a very good practical reason for GNG: that without it, an article can exist only as either
952:
939:
911:
866:
734:
163:
143:
751:
726:
1226:
837:
820:
410:
1182:, there is not a single reference to significant coverage in an independent reliable source. --
893:
851:
787:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
886:
Metroline will operate a further five on the E8 route between Ealing
Broadway and Brentford.
888:
doesn't remotely approach significant coverage. You've been here long enough to know that.--
582:
345:
307:
302:
Unfortunately, all of the valuable local history in these articles appears to be unverified
966:
917:
747:
670:
190:
1010:
Indeed I did remove the material, but not for the bad faith reasons which you suggest: my
705:
655:
564:
623:
303:
951:
says a fleet of 25 hybrids were to be deployed that month, with 5 on the E8. However,
1222:
833:
816:
607:
889:
847:
783:
193:: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
104:
942:
namechecks the E8 once, in para 5, where it is the second of two routes mentioned
922:"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail
673:
specifically says that "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention") --
1129:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/West
Midlands bus routes 51, X51 and 951A
189:
However, there is no evidence that this bus route meets the notability test of
704:
depending on result of discussions elsewhere about which is more appropriate.
1166:
1152:
1000:
996:- The nominator has now started to remove sourced content from this article,
522:
488:
448:
414:
366:
947:
The articles may differ from each other on significant points of fact. The
363:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject London
Transport#London bus route articles
602:
196:
Some of the material in the article could be incorporated in an expanded
936:). The Mayor's press release confirms the 25 hybrids-with-18-to-follow
619:
offers another way only where there are agreed separate guidelines.
361:
for now, there is already ongoing discussion on this elsewhere, at
924:. These articles do not directly address the route E8 in detail.
1238:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1119:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/West
Midlands bus route 33
1114:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/West
Midlands bus route 28
1124:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/West
Midlands bus route 7
999:
presumably to bolster her viewpoint that it should be deleted.
1069:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/London Buses route 372
1064:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/London Buses route 331
1059:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/London Buses route 237
1054:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/London Buses route 231
1049:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/London Buses route 183
1144:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/London Buses route 77
1139:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/London Buses route 68
1109:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/London Buses route E8
1104:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/London Buses route 77
1099:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/London Buses route 75
1094:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/London Buses route 74
1089:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/London Buses route 73
1084:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/London Buses route 71
1079:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/London Buses route 68
1074:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/London Buses route 42
731:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/London Buses route 74
1134:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Capital City Green
377:
The assessments there seem pretty shoddy. For example,
1179:
1011:
997:
962:
378:
100:
96:
92:
162:
229:
176:
487:What relevance does that have to this discussion?
652:are enough to justify keeping the article anyway.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1248:). No further edits should be made to this page.
932:story, also referenced toa primary source (the
920:test of "significant coverage" is explained as:
949:Hounslow Brentford Times article from Dec 2008
929:Hounslow Brentford Times article from Dec 2008
8:
263:list of England-related deletion discussions
257:
223:
1180:version before I removed the inaccuracies
261:: This debate has been included in the
227:: This debate has been included in the
725:Disruptive deletion spree made without
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
953:The Engineer article from July 2009
940:The Engineer article from July 2009
908:The subject of both those articles
200:, so a merger may be appropriate.
24:
1178:, but even if you look at the
934:Dec 2008 Mayor's press release
750:, please. I did indeed follow
1:
198:List of bus routes in London
579:Comment on procedural keeps
299:19:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
1265:
1176:Talk:London Buses route E8
1045:Other articles nominated:
1017:Talk:London Buses route E8
808:14:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
792:00:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
772:23:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
743:23:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
714:14:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
691:12:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
664:09:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
617:Knowledge (XXG):Notability
612:02:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
591:00:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
573:00:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
550:00:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
528:00:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
517:00:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
494:00:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
477:23:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
454:23:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
443:23:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
420:23:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
403:23:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
372:22:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
354:19:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
332:20:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
316:19:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
286:17:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
252:17:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
218:17:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
1231:04:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
1209:10:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
1200:16:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
1170:15:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
1156:15:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
1039:02:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
1006:01:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
987:01:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
963:result of those two edits
898:01:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
875:23:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
856:14:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
842:04:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
825:13:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
53:21:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
1241:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
383:London Buses route 187
67:London Buses route E8
59:London Buses route E8
44:The result was
1198:
1037:
985:
770:
689:
642:
624:original research
548:
515:
475:
441:
401:
304:original research
288:
284:
266:
254:
250:
232:
216:
1256:
1243:
1189:
1186:
1028:
1025:
1003:
976:
973:
761:
758:
680:
677:
633:
630:
539:
536:
525:
506:
503:
491:
466:
463:
451:
432:
429:
417:
392:
389:
369:
331:
298:
275:
272:
267:
241:
238:
233:
207:
204:
181:
180:
166:
118:
108:
90:
34:
1264:
1263:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1246:deletion review
1239:
1184:
1023:
1001:
971:
756:
675:
628:
561:Procedural keep
534:
523:
501:
489:
461:
449:
427:
415:
387:
367:
359:Procedural keep
342:Delete or merge
329:
296:
270:
236:
202:
123:
114:
81:
65:
62:
50:Scott Mac (Doc)
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1262:
1260:
1251:
1250:
1234:
1233:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1159:
1158:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1141:
1136:
1131:
1126:
1121:
1116:
1111:
1106:
1101:
1096:
1091:
1086:
1081:
1076:
1071:
1066:
1061:
1056:
1051:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1020:
991:
990:
989:
959:
958:
957:
945:
944:
943:
937:
903:
902:
901:
900:
878:
877:
867:Colonel Warden
860:
859:
858:
827:
810:
794:
776:
775:
774:
735:Colonel Warden
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
645:
644:
643:
620:
576:
575:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
375:
374:
356:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
321:
320:
319:
318:
289:
255:
184:
183:
120:
116:AfD statistics
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1261:
1249:
1247:
1242:
1236:
1235:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1219:
1216:
1210:
1207:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1168:
1164:
1161:
1160:
1157:
1154:
1151:
1150:
1145:
1142:
1140:
1137:
1135:
1132:
1130:
1127:
1125:
1122:
1120:
1117:
1115:
1112:
1110:
1107:
1105:
1102:
1100:
1097:
1095:
1092:
1090:
1087:
1085:
1082:
1080:
1077:
1075:
1072:
1070:
1067:
1065:
1062:
1060:
1057:
1055:
1052:
1050:
1047:
1046:
1044:
1040:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1018:
1013:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1004:
998:
995:
992:
988:
983:
979:
975:
968:
964:
960:
954:
950:
946:
941:
938:
935:
930:
926:
925:
923:
919:
915:
914:
912:
910:
907:
906:
905:
904:
899:
895:
891:
887:
882:
881:
880:
879:
876:
872:
868:
864:
861:
857:
853:
849:
845:
844:
843:
839:
835:
831:
828:
826:
822:
818:
814:
811:
809:
806:
802:
798:
795:
793:
789:
785:
780:
777:
773:
768:
764:
760:
753:
749:
746:
745:
744:
740:
736:
732:
728:
727:due diligence
724:
721:
715:
711:
707:
703:
699:
694:
693:
692:
687:
683:
679:
672:
667:
666:
665:
661:
657:
653:
650:
646:
640:
636:
632:
625:
621:
618:
615:
614:
613:
609:
605:
604:
598:
595:
594:
593:
592:
588:
584:
580:
574:
570:
566:
562:
559:
558:
551:
546:
542:
538:
531:
530:
529:
526:
520:
519:
518:
513:
509:
505:
497:
496:
495:
492:
478:
473:
469:
465:
457:
456:
455:
452:
446:
445:
444:
439:
435:
431:
423:
422:
421:
418:
412:
407:
406:
405:
404:
399:
395:
391:
384:
380:
373:
370:
364:
360:
357:
355:
351:
347:
343:
340:
339:
327:
326:
325:
324:
323:
322:
317:
313:
309:
305:
301:
300:
293:
290:
287:
282:
278:
274:
264:
260:
256:
253:
248:
244:
240:
230:
226:
222:
221:
220:
219:
214:
210:
206:
199:
194:
192:
187:
179:
175:
172:
169:
165:
161:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
133:
129:
126:
125:Find sources:
121:
117:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1240:
1237:
1217:
1206:Orderinchaos
1162:
1108:
1012:edit summary
993:
967:synthesising
921:
885:
862:
829:
812:
805:Orderinchaos
800:
796:
778:
722:
701:
697:
648:
647:
601:
596:
578:
577:
560:
379:this comment
376:
358:
341:
330:(IP removed)
297:(IP removed)
291:
258:
224:
195:
188:
185:
173:
167:
159:
152:
146:
140:
134:
124:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1163:strong keep
723:Speedy Keep
583:Mkativerata
346:Mkativerata
308:Mkativerata
150:free images
1187:HairedGirl
1026:HairedGirl
974:HairedGirl
782:article.--
759:HairedGirl
706:Alzarian16
678:HairedGirl
656:Alzarian16
654:See below
631:HairedGirl
565:Imzadi1979
537:HairedGirl
504:HairedGirl
464:HairedGirl
430:HairedGirl
390:HairedGirl
273:HairedGirl
239:HairedGirl
205:HairedGirl
752:WP:BEFORE
1223:Dew Kane
1195:contribs
1034:contribs
982:contribs
834:Dew Kane
817:Karanacs
801:redirect
767:contribs
702:Redirect
686:contribs
639:contribs
545:contribs
512:contribs
472:contribs
438:contribs
398:contribs
381:praises
281:contribs
247:contribs
213:contribs
111:View log
1218:Comment
994:Comment
890:Crossmr
863:Comment
848:Crossmr
784:Crossmr
156:WP refs
144:scholar
84:protect
79:history
1191:(talk)
1030:(talk)
978:(talk)
918:WP:GNG
813:Delete
797:Delete
779:delete
763:(talk)
748:WP:AGF
698:Delete
682:(talk)
671:WP:GNG
635:(talk)
541:(talk)
508:(talk)
468:(talk)
434:(talk)
411:pointy
394:(talk)
277:(talk)
243:(talk)
209:(talk)
191:WP:GNG
128:Google
88:delete
1185:Brown
1167:Okip
1153:Okip
1024:Brown
972:Brown
961:The
757:Brown
676:Brown
629:Brown
608:talk
535:Brown
502:Brown
462:Brown
428:Brown
388:Brown
271:Brown
237:Brown
203:Brown
171:JSTOR
132:books
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
1227:talk
1002:Jeni
927:The
916:The
894:talk
871:talk
852:talk
838:talk
830:Keep
821:talk
788:talk
739:talk
729:per
710:talk
660:talk
649:Keep
597:Keep
587:talk
569:talk
524:Jeni
490:Jeni
450:Jeni
416:Jeni
368:Jeni
350:talk
312:talk
306:. --
292:keep
259:Note
225:Note
164:FENS
138:news
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
46:keep
1193:• (
1032:• (
980:• (
799:or
765:• (
733:.
700:or
684:• (
637:• (
603:DGG
543:• (
510:• (
470:• (
436:• (
396:• (
279:• (
268:--
245:• (
234:--
211:• (
178:TWL
113:•
109:– (
1229:)
896:)
873:)
854:)
840:)
823:)
790:)
741:)
712:)
662:)
610:)
589:)
571:)
499:--
459:--
425:--
352:)
314:)
265:.
231:.
158:)
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
48:.
1225:(
1197:)
1036:)
1019:.
984:)
892:(
869:(
850:(
836:(
819:(
786:(
769:)
737:(
708:(
688:)
658:(
641:)
606:(
585:(
567:(
547:)
514:)
474:)
440:)
400:)
348:(
310:(
283:)
249:)
215:)
182:)
174:·
168:·
160:·
153:·
147:·
141:·
135:·
130:(
122:(
119:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.