Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 5 (2nd nomination)

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 keep‎. While there is some concern that bus routes violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY the consensus among participating editors is that there is enough coverage of this particular bus route to establish notability. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 5[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[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)

There is no evidence of notability and goes against WP:NOT 1keyhole (talk) 04:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, multiple book sources are evidence for notability. Have you looked at and evaluated these? As for NOT, you’re going to have to expand on that. Garuda3 (talk) 07:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to those in the article, this book likely has WP:SIGCOV. Garuda3 (talk) 07:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete. I haven't evaluated the sources presented, but if this is not individually notable it should be merged and redirected to List of bus routes in London. Everything here verifies that this is a member of a notable set (bus routes in London) and consensus is that at least some members of that set are individually notable, so every member is a plausible search term that should be a blue link. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. I think also worth bearing in mind that the list of bus routes in London page is very long already, and so it makes sense to split content out into individual pages rather than try to cram more in. I think the best solution is to keep this as a separate article. Garuda3 (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see anything in those guidelines that prohibits articles on bus routes. Garuda3 (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sitting on the fence on this article, but NOTDIR doesn't apply in this case, as it's got nothing in it that resembles a directory, and NOTTRAVEL applies mostly to content (in this case, there's not a lot of stuff pertaining to be a travel guide - bar the list of destinations which is common across all other London bus routes). So the real question is does it satisfy WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDIR specifies that "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed" which this article trips over. A bus route by itself isn't notable. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How does it trip over? You could use that vague argument to delete anything you don’t like. Garuda3 (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheInsatiableOne: A topic is notable in the Wikipedia sense if it has been the subject of in-depth coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. There is no reason an individual bus route cannot be notable, indeed from memory AfDs in the past have concluded that some routes are. While you are entitled to have opinions about bus routes in general they are not at all relevant - you need to explain why this bus route is or is not notable. Thryduulf (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A bus route by itself isn't notable. - That is not necessarily correct. While it is true that bus routes aren't automatically notable, and that many or even most bus routes might not pass GNG, there's no specific carve-out to the GNG that says "bus routes are never notable". WP:NOTDIR does not allow, among other things, "simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit", but it does allow an explanation of such information that is supported by reliable secondary sources. If the bus route article were merely a listing of stop locations or a schedule of bus departures, that would be a violation of NOTDIR, but this isn't the case here, either. Similarly, WP:NOTTRAVEL refers mostly to how articles should be structured. NOTTRAVEL does not allow information that may be better suited for a travel guide, but it does allow information about transportation. if it can be presented neutrally in an encyclopedic way. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I second what @Epicgenius: has said. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough independent sources to meet the WP:GNG threshold.. Morteinmeil (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to List of bus routes in London, clearly not notable in its own right. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This vote reads as opinion as you have provided no reasoning. Garuda3 (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough sources in the article to pass WP:GNG, and it seems to have plenty of WP:SIGCOV as well. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Just about enough here on the route's history per the sources to justify a Wikipedia article. Don't think the article falls foul of WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL as there is more than a mere listing of the route's destinations and timetable. Rupples (talk) 03:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough sources in the article to pass WP:GNG Lightburst (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As is evident from the references, this bus line meets the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage is WP:ROUTINE for a bus route. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would be interested to see some source analysis --
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's quite difficult to do a source analysis as the relister wished, since many of the cited sources don't have free online samples (And honestly I don't want to buy books or sign up for subscription just for Wikipedia). However, I'll still list my opinions of the sources for future editors to reference:

Source ＃	Evaluation	Link
1 & 2	Undetermined. The sources need subscriptions to be viewed. If it's any help, the source dated 5 February 1954 has a word count of 449. The one dated 14 May 1954 has a word count of 99 (per the BNA). Rupples (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]	WLO 1954/02/05 WLO 1954/05/14
3	Undetermined. Did not find online version	Google Books link
4	Undetermined. The article cited it for an event in 1971, which is not in the Google Books' preview.	Google Books link
5	Announcemant of extention, seems to fall under WP:ROUTINE.	Webarchive link
6	Undetermined. The citation said page 182, but the book does not seem to have page numbers. It seems to focus on individual buses instead of the route as a whole.	Google Books link
7	Undetermined. Subscription required.	CWB archive
8	Undetermined. Did not find online copy.	N/A
9	Route change, seems to fall under WP:ROUTINE.	Webarchive link
10	Includes "bus route 5" in the "River Road" section. Trivial mention.	Source link
11	Route map. Since It's published by Transport for London, it should be viewed as a primary source. Nothing wrong about citing it, but doesn't prove notability just by itself.	Source link

With the sources that I can currently access, there doesn't seem to be a strong case for keep. I don't think further discussion would be productive unless some editors are willing to purchase the books and subscriptions to verify the sources, or find other sources that other editors can verify. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Undortunately I don’t have access to the books either. However, the book “London bus Routes One by One :1-100” will almost certainly discuss this route, helping establish notability. Also, WP:ROUTINE is part of the events notability guideline and thus doesn’t apply here. Garuda3 (talk) 11:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While the bus route itself is clearly not an event, any change to the route is an event or happening/occurence and hence WP:EVENTS may be used to evaluate whether the sources relating to the route change help with establishing notability of the route.

For example, the announcement of a change to a bus route that attracts no comment in reliable, secondary sources is likely routine. However, a change that attracts protests and comment could be considered non-routine, and be an indication of the route's notability.

With regard to the source table; no. 5 is an announcement by the route operator of the change and clearly doesn't count towards notability. Source 9 may indicate notability especially if the consultation referred to attracted comment/debate in the press, and/or protests, even if local. Nonetheless, how sustained any coverage was should also be considered under WP:NOTNEWS. There's coverage of the route change here [1] and here [2]. The change attracted the attention of Margaret Hodge, the MP for Barking. There's also a snippet on the speed of the route here [3]. Rupples (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While I voted to redirect in the last discussion, based on lack of references, the article has been expanded since then. While I can't verify most of the new references (as mentioned above), many appear to be independent references (more than just routine coverage) and may open up a fair amount of history about this route. Given the routes low route number and has been in existence for over 60 years, and has been used in previous locations, it's probably notable. Ajf773 (talk) 10:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the discussion so far (sources do exist, and a bus route can be notable). BTW in general I don't like to see 2nd, 3rd, 4th AFDs; bus routes seem to be a good target for such, and where they seem kneejerk because they're bus routes, they should be opposed. Ping User:Andrew Davidson who commented in one of the listed previous discussions (the one on bus route 53, commenting about route 53) that "I ordered a copy of The Motorbus in Central London which has now arrived and so I can confirm that it is an excellent source for this historic bus route, containing pages of detail about it. I also see good coverage in other works such as Motor Omnibus Routes in London and the Routemaster Omnibus and so it is clear that the topic passes the WP:GNG. There will be no difficulty in expanding the topic; we just need to get this disruptive discussion terminated so that work can commence. Andrew D. (talk) 05:17, 5 August 2016" Andrew, can you comment about that source re route 5? (Note there was a lot of conflict in the bus route 53 AFD about selective notifications / wp:CANVAS; here I am just pinging the one person I notice in the previous AFDs who went ahead and bought one of the prominent candidates for significant sources.) --Doncram (talk,contribs)
What made you think it was a good idea to ping someone who's literally topic banned from AfD??? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trainsandotherthings, I don't know about that. I explained why I pinged them. Now, I don't know the terms of whatever ban you refer to, and/or whether they could provide information directly or indirectly. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 18:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now you're just being willfully ignorant. I spelled it out for you, Andrew Davidson is topic banned from AfD. I don't know how much clearer I can be. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of bus routes in London, based on the results of the source analysis above which doesn't show a GNG pass. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source analysis is not conclusive, as it notes consulting the sources is needed. I suggested consulting one of the sources just above, and you just point to a difficulty about that. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 18:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source analysis shows far more than you have (nothing). I don't know what "and you just point to a difficulty about that" is supposed to mean, but I never said anything of the sort. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:30, 15 May 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.