Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route K5

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. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 07:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route K5[edit]

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

Non-notable bus route, filled with cruft. Majority of sources are from local news agencies so notability may be an issue with them. Nordic Nightfury 12:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 12:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 12:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The least notable bus route I've seen in a while! Not high use, in fact "In 2009, a consultation was initiated regarding the usefulness of the route" suggests that even TfL question it's notability ;-) Jeni ^(talk) 14:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- this route was on Wikipedia's front page as part of DYK, nominated by Launchballer and notability concerns seem to have been addressed as part of that process. I would read Template:Did you know nominations/London Buses route K5 where the question of notability was explicitly brought up and apparently resolved as the hook made it to the main page. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources and an existing consensus per User:Jcc. Andrew D. (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep -Per Jcc and Andrew Davidson. I didnt realise this was all going on while I was out on holiday in India! Anyway, Notability is passed due to a previous DYK nomination, so that's why I'm opting for a speedy keep. Class455 (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability has already been established. Does it say anywhere that simply being put on the front page guarantees notability?--Laun chba ller 7:39 pm, Today (UTC+1)
Delete per WP:PRODUCT, WP:GNG. Goods and services should be covered at the providers' pages. Not notable in itself. Making it into DYK by the skin of its teeth does not prove notability. No wider secondary coverage beyond a specialised fan publication.Charles (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Upon examing the extensive coverage in the sources, have to agree with the communities earliers assessment that this important bus route is indeed notable. On the WP:PRODUCT argument, a bus route is not just a "product" but among other things also an element of public infrastructure. It would be as senseless to delete a bus route for being a product as it would be to destroy or merge a motorway article just beacause it happened to be toll road. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only on the basis it ended up at DYK, Had it not been for that I would've gone with delete. –Davey2010^Talk 20:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that having been in DYK confers notability is false. Notability is determined by this process, based of available secondary sources, not by a limited local consensus at DYK.Charles (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What guideline suggests this? The question of notability was answered when the article was nominated for a DYK, and it passed, so is definitely notable. Class455 (talk) 04:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The policy linked in the above post.Charles (talk) 09:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree however IMHO as it's been on the main page it deserves an article and in all fairness it must've had some notability for it to have reached the main page, I believe every thing that reaches DYK should have an article kept still, Deleting this would only mean we're deleting a part of history and IMHO we'd only be disadvantaging ourselves. –Davey2010^Talk 11:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that this formal process can be trumped by a local consensus of whoever happens to be working on DYK at the time? That would be against policy.Charles (talk) 13:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has no rules, so we don't have to stick to policy. WP:IAR applies as if a "policy" stops you from improving Wikipedia, then ignore it, unless its a copyvio, deliberately vandalising the encyclopedia or verifiability. Class455 (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As Charlesdrakew and Jeni have voted delete WP:SK#1 does not apply. This cannot be speedily kept. With five keep votes and two delete votes, however, the current consensus is 'keep'.--Laun chba ller 17:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bit more context to Launchballer's comment: Nordic Nightfury, the nominator closed this AfD as withdrawn by nominator, however, as User:Launchballer noticed, Wikipedia:Speedy_keep#1 states that an AfD can only be closed in such a situation where the nominator withdraws if "no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected." This does not apply in this case, since User:Jeni and User:Charlesdrakew have voted delete. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a ballot. Only an uninvolved admin can determine the outcome based on the strength of the various points made.Charles (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability has already been established as per above. 82.27.197.173 (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC) — 82.27.197.173 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. as a major bus route in a major city. Being in DYK is irrelevant. (if something totally non-notable ends up in DYK because of the eccentricities of that project, we might want to maintain traceability as a redirect to something pertinent, but it would never be reason to actually keep the article. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 2 November 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.