Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/747 Uppingham–Leicester

Add links
From 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. While there is some interest in merging, there is no consensus on whether or where that should happen. The consensus of editors here is that the article should not exist standalone. If a consensus can be developed on what and where to merge, that can of course be facilitated at that time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

747 Uppingham–Leicester[edit]

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

747 Uppingham–Leicester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable bus route with no significant history to make it worth retaining. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like a pretty standard bus route, nothing notable has happened along its route. I don't find any sources that talk about it; coverage given as sourcing in the article is routine discussion about the route. Oaktree b (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per source assessment table below. "Routine" and "a pretty standard bus route" are not valid reasons for deletion when we have multiple reliable sources that meet WP:GNG. Garuda3 (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ROUTINE. It describes the bus route and various changes made to it, it's all standard bus route stuff. Replace this route name in the article with any other from anywhere else on the planet and it would read the same. Oaktree b (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ROUTINE applies to events, not bus routes. Garuda3 (talk) 08:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.centrebus.info/media/3215/route-747-01092021.pdf No Yes No Official timetable ✘ No
https://liberalengland.blogspot.com/2016/11/save-747-leicester-to-uppingham-bus.html ? No Blog Yes Article focuses on using the route, and its potential withdrawal ✘ No
https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/key-bus-service-keep-going-3662125 Yes Yes Yes Article dedicated to the route ✔ Yes
https://www.stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/747-bus-to-continue-for-another-year-9093855/ Yes Yes Yes Article dedicated to the route ✔ Yes
https://oakham.nub.news/news/local-news/funding-agreement-to-support-uppingham-to-leicester-747-bus-service Yes Yes Yes Article dedicated to the route ✔ Yes
https://www.harboroughmail.co.uk/news/people/harborough-rural-bus-service-has-been-saved-least-another-year-1345800 Yes Yes Yes Article dedicated to the route ✔ Yes
https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/business/bus-firm-shut-depot-it-faces-fall-customers-1108692 Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ 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}}.
  • I'm also disappointed that no WP:ATD was considered. Either Leicester or Centrebus are potential merge targets, though I feel it is beneifical for this content to have its own article so it is easier to find. Garuda3 (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I reckon many many bus routes in the UK have media coverage in local newspapers when there are timetable changes, funding changes or other things happen. That doesn't make them notable. This is literally nothing more than a local bus route. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Having coverage in newspapers is what defines notability. WP:GNG does not exclude local coverage. This is literally nothing more than a local bus route. is irrelevant. Just because this article doesn't interest you doesn't mean it shouldn't be included in the wiki. Garuda3 (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources are all about funding changes to the route, there's more about the cancellation or not of the route, than about the route itself. It doesn't serve any notable landmarks, isn't a historic route or have any famous drivers. There seem to be no construction scandals that took place along the route, or much of anything else that differentiates it from any other bus route on the planet. Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that bus routes are being slashed and withdrawn across the country is notable in itself and worthy of documenting. Bus routes are a lifeline for non-drivers. Once again if the coverage is there, the route doesn't have to be "special" in any way to warrant an article. There is no space limit on Wikipedia Garuda3 (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just another run-of-the-mill bus route with no redeeming features or any long standing history. Routine coverage only, and at local level, does not satisfy notability requirements. Ajf773 (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect if a good target can be found (I didn't see an obvious one from a quick search), otherwise delete. Perhaps a brief mention in the articles on the communities served by the bus would be helpful? Bus routes aren't automatically notable, and WP:LOCAL, while an essay, does reflect common community consensus on topics that only receive local coverage, such as this bus route. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per detailed source assessment by Garuda3, the topic is notable and meets the WP:GNG. Merge could still be considered yet there is no great merge option. A47 road comes closest. This is a lengthy article that should not contain the nits and grits of 747 Uppingham–Leicester. In the bottom line, 747 Uppingham–Leicester is both notable and a legitimate spinoff of A47 road. gidonb (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gidonb: All those sources are about funding and there's absolutely nothing that makes this bus route stand out. Just because it follows a random A road, that doesn't make it notable; there are literally thousands of bus routes in the UK that follow A road. Your argument doesn't give any reason why this bus route is particularly special in comparison with the many others which all got deleted through AfD. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And also, the bus route follows under 20 miles of the 192-mile A47 road. This is just a really poor argument and doesn't take into account Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. It doesn't stand out. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see how four local articles covering the exact same thing (funding being added for 1 year) shows notability; in fact, I don't think I'd even consider them significant coverage at all because of how short they are. As alluded to immediately above, this fails to pass WP:MILL. GNG is more complex than "if you find two sources it's automatically notable". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the road doesn't make the bus line notable. The references do! A common reaction to good sources is about supposed carveouts: the sources are about this or that. For example, folks often say all the sources mentioned about the company are its locations, its finance, its staff, its operations. Well, that pretty much summed up the company. Same here. I don't fall for that. The subject either is or isn't notable. This bus line clearly is notably and that much has been proven. STILL, even after that, I seriously consider merge options. And OFTEN opt for that option. To the great annoyance of the preservationists! As explained, in this case even that was irrelevant. gidonb (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you didn't read what I said. I said I do not think the sources are significant coverage. But go off. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I did read what you said. You also made an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument of sorts. I do not have to react to everything. I never ever implied that all or even most bus lines are notable. This one had profitability problems and a funding fight around it. People depend on this service and this went noted. You tried to use this against it. But it really assists notability. gidonb (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, funding issues don't automatically make a bus route notable. They're an everyday thing and a normal thing across the country with various bus routes and that doesn't make it notable. It's still WP:MILL. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:MILL is an essay. It doesn't trump WP:GNG, which this article passes. Garuda3 (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, funding issues don't automatically make a bus route notable No kidding! The keyword that makes this statement (automatically?) true is "automatically". The process, however, is far from automatic. It is evidence-based and any issues can succeed or fail in making something notable. It's all about the WP:GNG. The rest are just distractions. gidonb (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bickering
::::::No, it really doesn't, but I'm not going to continue going back and forth when you've already made up your mind based on your feelings rather than policies and guidelines. The closer can evaluate the strength (or lack thereof, in your case) of the arguments. I've said my piece. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
False personal attacks never convey strength. If you do not have valid arguments, just stop writing under someone's opinion! gidonb (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in engaging with you and your misrepresentations further (if you think what I said is a personal attack, which it isn't by any definition, I can't wait to see how you respond to an actual personal attack). How about you take your own advice and leave me be? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And we do not have carveouts for regional or local press either. We scrutinize such sources a bit closer. That's all. gidonb (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see why the references make it notable when they're all about funding; I scrutinised the 5 sources in the table above that had significant coverage in green, all of them about funding. Is it a popular route used by plenty of tourists? No. Has anything special happened to this route during its history? No. Especially when the coverage is all about just funding which doesn't make it notable. And I don't see any proof of its notability. I still want to know what makes this bus route special that it's not WP:MILL compared to other bus routes that have been deleted through AfD. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BUSOUTCOMES, while not policy, is worthwhile to note here. General community consensus is individual bus routes operating on city streets are not notable (as opposed to say a dedicated BRT corridor/busway). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Answered above. My position is that most bus lines are NOT notable. This one is. My reasoning is data-driven, as AfD opinions should be. Each AfD and its very special circumstances that support keeping, deleting, merging, or redirecting. gidonb (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you only recognise these OUTCOMES pages when they suit you. You dismissed anyone citing WP:RAILOUTCOMES at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neiwei railway station Garuda3 (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bickering
::::::I am happy to discuss the relevance or lack thereof of OUTCOMES essays on my talk page or elsewhere, but I'm not going to engage with this AfD further since gidonb will bludgeon to death anything I add. I am kind of impressed you went back 10 months ago, before the train station notability RfC occurred and proved that train stations had no inherent notability, proving my position reflected community consensus and yours did not. That AfD was hampered by limited participation, and included the thoroughly policy-ignorant vote of Keep. Consensus has long been that all railway stations are notable and WP:CONSENSUS most certainly is a policy. I'm not invested enough in bus articles to launch a similar RfC, lucky you. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the first time this user misbehaved in this AfD. They now decided to project their shortcomings on someone else. So be it! gidonb (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the personal attack. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also did not say OUTCOMES was gospel, or "delete per BUSOUTCOMES" (in fact, I suggested a merge or redirect above outright deletion), while you have certainly argued "Keep per RAILOUTCOMES". I said it was worth noting, not that it was decisive. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Outcomes should not inform decision making because they lead to circular reasoning. Instead, one should always let the data lead and analyze each case independently, by policies and guidelines. gidonb (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well written article, and the subject is notable. Serratra (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content to the Transport section, subheading Buses, in Uppingham. I would have suggested merging this into an article entitled "Funding of UK bus routes" or such like but haven't come across one. Instead, a merge to the Uppingham page is valid. The impact of the route's loss would be greater on Uppingham than Leicester. I don't think the article should be kept as it's basically a local news story, and the sources put forward are local newspaper coverage of the funding issue. If it had received national coverage, I'd have considered keep. Rupples (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep jengod (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bus lines are the red-headed stepchild of mass transit but buses and bus riders are good. We should treat them better, including on Wikipedia. That's just like my opinion man. jengod (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoever is analysing this discussion doesn't care if you like bus routes or not. They want to understand how this article is compliant with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Ajf773 (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I'm saying our guidelines are deranged when it comes to transit stuff. jengod (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article meets GNG. I've added an additional source since publishing the source analysis above. Garuda3 (talk) 07:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: could we consider a merger to something like "List of bus routes in [Uppingham/Leicester]", or "Bus transportation in [Uppingham/Leicester]"? Aside from the obvious problems with local coverage, we're also wandering into NOTDATABASE territory here. I also find the reference to systemic bias ironic; the average bus line in Japan, or Indonesia, or Nigeria, is likely to be used by far, far more people, and we don't have articles on those. I also don't see how schedule changes or operator changes are encyclopedic in and of themselves, especially when it's very likely that these are non-exhaustive. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a merge would be beneficial as you either only have content in one place (how to decide where?) or have duplication across multiple articles. Better to have an article with the route info and link to it where appropriate allowing those interested to find out more.
I'm not convinced Wikipedia:NOTDATABASE is relevant here - none of the four bullets appear to fit.
As for what is encyclopedic or not, Wikipedia has always been so much more than just a traditional encyclopedia. Cutting it down to what you'd find in a paper encyclopedia would involve deleting most of the wiki. Garuda3 (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Coverage is ultra-local and is mostly WP:ROUTINE annoucements as references, the article itself is entirely non-enclyclopedic and has no historical depth. The stuff about funding is about as generic as its possible to get. scope_creepTalk 13:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ROUTINE is part of the events guideline and thus isn't applicable here. How is it non encyclopedic? Garuda3 (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Coverage is entirely routine. BruceThomson (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Totally routine. Nothing remarkable here at all. The four articles counted towards GNG by @Garuda3 all say almost exactly the same thing (probably all based on the same press release) and all date from the same week in December 20-19, more than three years ago. I would have suggested merging to Centrebus if there was anything interesting to merger, but there really isn't. Nwhyte (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Notability isn't temporary. Once notability has been established (as it has been here), it doesn't expire. "interesting" is subjective. The rest of your comment is pure Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT. Garuda3 (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think we are really getting into the weeds if we think local newspaper articles about timetable changes mean that specific bus routes are notable. Personally I think there is an argument for a page discussing bus routes by area or bus company. Otherwise I just can't see how we are to determine between one bus-route and another (also, potentially, this will mean that a bus route only becomes notable when it is cut and then covered in local media. That can't be right, can it?) JMWt (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused by your comment. We have various places this could be merged to. If you support bus content on Wikipedia, why are you voting to delete?
    As for what routes are notable, this is exhibited with all topics on Wikipedia. Trying to cover every single bus route in the world would be silly but what we can do is cover those that are written about in reliable, independant sources.
    Finally, there is a misconception that a "local" paper somehow doesn't count for notability. WP:GNG does not exclude local coverage. Garuda3 (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2023 (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/747_Uppingham–Leicester&oldid=1136784938"