Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus route 1 (Birmingham)

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. (except route 8) Scott Mac (Doc) 13:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

West Midlands bus route 1 (Birmingham)

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because the issues are similar in all cases.

These 9 articles are on non-notable bus-routes in the West Midlands Region of England. They were all contested PRODs, and I have nominated them together because of objections to opening separate AFDs for other similar groups of articles.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and although these articles describe things which do exist, mere existence is insufficient grounds for creating a standalone article.

None of the articles contains either an assertion of notability, or evidence of notability per WP:GNG's requirement of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Articles like these which do not meet GNG are not just a narrow problem of notability, because WP:GNG is a simple consequence of verifiablity: without sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources, articles like this are incapable of being sourced according to core policies. None of these articles have any footnotes, so it is impossible to tell where the material has been sourced from; it could be original research, or it could be false.

All of these articles were PRODded on 27 March (not by me), but the PRODs were promptly removed in these edits, all with the edit summary "West Midlands bus routes have already been pruned down leaving the notable ones remaining". That comment appears to refer to a discussion a year ago at WT:UKBRQDRIVE#West_Midlands_Bus_Routes, where I can find no assessment of any of these articles. It may be that somebody decided they are notable, but I can see no direct evidence of how or why these particular routes were considered as notable.

However, the notes at Wikipedia:UKBRQDRIVE#What qualifies as a route notable for an article? suggest that editors were applying criteria which completely ignore WP:GNG: "Routes with a significant history", and "major arterial routes from the major cities in the area, with a high frequency". That sounds to be like a good way of selecting routes which could be mentioned in a general article on bus transport in the area .... but since it ignores WP:GNG it is a very bad way of selecting standalone articles.

Some similar articles have been redirected to lists, but many such redirects have simply been reverted, so these articles should be deleted to prevent undeletion without a new consensus being formed. Editors may want to re-create some of these titles as redirects, and are of course free to do so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Note. I have struck West Midlands bus route 8 from this nomination, having missed the fact that it is the subject of a book of photographs.[1] However, notability has not been established for the other routes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Procedural: the above as factually incorrect. The PROD was removed from the Route 8 article by me, with the summary "subject of a book and a musical = notability" and not as stated. These facts also disprove the claim that 'None of the articles contains either an assertion of notability, or evidence of notability per WP:GNG's requirement of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".' The statement that 'None of these articles have any footnotes' is also not correct, in this case. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Route 8. As above. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - indiscriminate nomination which includes both notable and non notable routes. User is disruptively nominating practically any bus route article she finds for deletion. An ANI discussion has been started on these disruptive mass nominations here. Jeni ^(talk) 23:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not so. I nominated this bunch because they were drawn to my attention as contested PRODs, and after doing more research, the rationale for opposing the PRODs did not fit with what I could see either on the discussion page or in the articles themselves, or in what I could find through searching.
Rather than repeatedly abusing contributors, how about commenting on content by addressing the notability or otherwise of these articles? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Route 8 - I missed the fact it has been discussed significantly in the form of a book. Aiken ♫ 00:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a bus timetable. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This user has blatantly not even looked at the article, I certianly can't see a bus timetable on there, can anyone else? Jeni ^(talk) 14:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not on the article I voted to keep at least. A brief summary of how often the service operates is perfectly acceptable and not in violation of Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Aiken ♫ 14:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. My reading of that comment is that it was tongue in cheek. These pages most certainly are a travel guide. And just how do you plan on filling out these pages? Are you going to mention the trees on the routes? I believe the routes feature an inordinate number of squirrels. I'll go add that right now. Szzuk (talk) 07:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Clearly you haven't read the articles either. Maybe you should and you'll see that you are incorrect. Maybe also note that I am somebody who has !voted to delete most of the routes as non-notable, and wouldn't say keep unless it was actually notable. Aiken ♫ 20:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Clearly you haven't read what you've written in this afd. Where are your delete comments? Szzuk (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I have no opinion on the others. However, they don't read like a travel guide - not even close! Aiken ♫ 22:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Lol. True. They would be an awful travel guide! Szzuk (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Route 8, delete all others per nom. Orderinchaos 17:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I used to know someone whose hobby was buses. I think there are a lot of people like that. Well enough to make pointless wikipedia articles and not know better. Szzuk (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Per my !votes in the other bus route AFDs. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 01:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep route 8, delete others per similar comments above. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep route 8, delete others - Article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable third party sources - name drops only. Karanacs (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep route 8. As per others. Route 8 goes with the Outer circle route 11 too. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 16:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep routes 1, 377 & 997, these three groups of routes are/were all part of six routes which as part of a West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive initiative, passengers were able to get refunds if the bus was late, amongst other things. Verseshown (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' all ; bus routes are major fixtures of human geography and thus notable. DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Ok, if I want to find out which busses take me around in West Midlands I go to wikipedia, right? I don't think so. Nageh (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Alternatively, I suggest merging all the articles into a single list. Go figure how this is done in List_of_bus_routes_in_the_West_Midlands_county and sub-lists. Nageh (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all (Route 8 has been withdrawn from the nomination. Good for Route 8). This is an encyclopaedia. A core policy of this encyclopaedia is, as it should be, verifiability. We don't achieve verifiability by allowing unverified content on the basis that it is a "feature of local geography". We achieve verifiability by requiring significant coverage in reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2010 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus route 1 (Birmingham)

West Midlands bus route 1 (Birmingham)

Comments

Navigation menu

Search