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 no consensus.  Sandstein  07:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 53 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non notable bus route. It's only claim to notability is that it serves a section of road that no other bus route serves, which isn't exactly an uncommon thing!

Trivial mention of a minor non-injury collision, the sort of thing that happens daily on the roads. Jeni ^(talk) 13:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not noteworthy for a stand alone article, trivia. Kierzek (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Passes GNG as there are a number of sources on the page. Most of them are books. Also, another claim of notability is that it was the first route in London and possibly the whole country to receive the brand new Wright Gemini 3 Hybrid buses. Class455fan1 (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Just out of interest, which part of Wikipedia:Speedy keep applies here? I can't find any books in the sources list of the article, only niche enthusiast magazines. Two of the magazine references appear to be passing references in an article that's not about the route itself, while the other is detailing how the route was diverted due to a road closure. All trivial mentions.

  Please by all means provide some non trivial coverage, in independent non self published sources and I'm sure we can reconsider. Jeni ^(talk) 14:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Reference 1 is a book "Seeing Red", published by Ian Allan publishing, which is highly regarded for its books on transportation (sadly the man himself passed away a about a year ago) There are also a number of articles in the BUSES Magazine about the new tender and the Gemini 3's and some consultations on the route from TfL about the extension to Whitehall. There are a number of sources listed which are by local news sources around South London about the cutback to Lambeth North, so is covered in secondary sources Class455fan1 (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Nope, "Seeing Red" is an article titled "Seeing Red" in "Buses Focus" magazine, which was a sister magazine by Ian Allan. Ultimately a niche enthusiast magazine, just like Buses Magazine. There are no books in the reference list.

  You still haven't answered as to which part of Wikipedia:Speedy keep applies? You still haven't given any non trivial sources! Jeni ^(talk) 18:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buses Magazine was recently transferred over to the care of "Key Publishing" in 2013 so there are some sources in there, There is an article in the July 2014 article about the new Gemini 3 and one around the time when the tender was announced, but I don't have either of these issues because I don't subscribe to the magazine (I'm not made of money), but i remember seeing a big article about the Gemini 3's in the July 2014 issue as i had a look whilst in a WHSmith around that time. I did opt for speedy keep because of WP:IGNOREALLRULES but I did not see the "in a nutshell" part about WP:SNOW as I was using the mobile site (not the app) at the time, so I've changed it to strong keep. Class455fan1 (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Class455fan1 (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Class455fan1 (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: to be honest most of the London bus articles could be deleted under this criterion. WP:AfD/London Buses Route 43? "Non notable bus article". WP:AfD/London Buses Route X26? "Non notable bus article". WP:AfD/London Buses Route 1573? "Non notable bus article". I fail to see what could make any typical ordinary local bus route notable. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This route is over 100 years old and it's easy to find detailed coverage because London buses are especially well studied. Andrew D. (talk) 10:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  You've found a picture of a bus on route 53 with a passing mention that it was renumbered, this is not detailed coverage! Jeni ^(talk) 10:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per 455 and Andrew D. Notability can be found through print as well as the web, per above. Granted, it needs expansion, but at a later date. Nordic Nightfury 10:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or redirect. I haven't got time to search for sources right now, but if there is insufficient coverage for an article at the present time it should be redirected (with edit history intact) to a relevant list article. Some London bus routes are notable, which means that all the London bus routes are logical and useful search terms that should direct readers to a list where they can find basic information and links to resources for further study should they wish. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. "In November 2008, a bus travelling on the route was involved in a collision with a car in Woolwich. There were no serious injuries. Passengers stated that the bus driver had braked sharply to avoid a more serious collision, and he was praised by a spokesman for bus operator Selkent.^[1]" Seriously? This is pure trivia.Charles (talk) 10:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no guideline as far as I'm aware that covers adding trivial information into articles as long as it can be verified, which it is. The only time where it should be avoided is having a section in the article that consists of pure trivia only. See WP:TRIVIA. Class455fan1 (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now (edit conflict) -- This needs to be considered as part of a much wider nomination for all London bus routes, not piecemeal (unless this is intended as a test nom). I have in the past been highly critical of bus route articles on the basis that they are ephemeral and liable to require a lot of maintenance. At present we have articles on most routes numbered below 200. We should have articles on all or none. Andrew Davison says it is 100 years old; that may be correct, but the article only goes back to the adoption of new buses following deregulation about 20 years ago. To the extent that the former nationalised (muncipalised?) system survived for much of the 20th century, it may be of sufficient endurance to merit articles. If so, it would be an exception. I support the removal of most bus route articles, as ephemeral and unmaintainable. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Peter, a couple of years ago, nearly every bus route (and lists of bus routes) in the country were deleted by AfD but at the time the London routes were highly guarded by a number of enthusiasts who have no regard for Wikipedia and it's standards. Most London routes that come to AfD these days get deleted by a fairly large consensus, this is the first that's got more than 1 or 2 keeps. Jeni ^(talk) 11:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Some bus routes are ephemeral but some are not and 80+ years with only minor tweaks is not uncommon in London. You simply cannot gloss route 24 (unchanged since 1912) and route 135 (commenced 2008) as the same. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I said "for now" because I believe either we should keep then all or delete them all. The London routes have had a long term stability not found elsewhere, which might be grounds for keeping. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep This article passes WP:GNG since it has received significant coverage over many different type of sources that do include WP:RS. The threshold of notability has been breached. Maybeparaphrased (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Maybeparaphrased, which part of Wikipedia:Speedy keep applies here? Jeni ^(talk) 15:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete So far the Keep ivotes are claiming "detailed coverage" (which there is not); "books in the references" (which apparently there are not). Additionally, a link provided here at this AfD to a Book on Google books covers the look and color of London buses in 1979 - which seems to be a very trivial subject - and it has trivial coverage in captions of the buses that are covered - and I am not seeing Route 53 in this book - but the coverage would be trivial because the subject matter is wholly trivial.

Also, the subject of the first reference seems to be about a writer for the niche magazine driving London buses, it is not about Route 53, and not only that - I don't see where route 53 is mentioned in the article. Using this as a reference in the article is misleading. Essentially, I have to agree with the nominator, User:Jeni that there is group within bus enthusiasts who have no regard for Wikipedia and its standards.

This is not a fan site and it is not a hobbyist site. I don't see how ordinary bus routes in London are notable and deserve a stand alone article - even if some routes are 100 years old. Overall, there does not appear to be significant coverage of this topic in reliable sources - it is not notable and has not demonstrated any notable impact. Lastly, I think a redirect is acceptable - if not then delete. Steve Quinn (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Further cited history has now been added. Agree with User:Peterkingiron that a more thorough discussion need take place at somewhere like talk:WikiProject London Transport to come up with a set of criteria that could then be applied rather than random AfDs which result in better articles being deleted and lesser ones retained.

A point made by the nominating editor[1] that resulted in her lodging a formal complaint.[2] If Midlands bus route 8 was deemed worthy of retention, but the others on that debate not, there can't have been much on these articles to defend. 11Expo (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic and inappropriate commentary on editor behavior. Editors are warned to not repeat such behavior at AFD in the future. All conduct disputes should be raised an an appropriate forum, such as WP:ANI. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed by Coffee. Please do not modify it.
Note for closing editor There appears to have been some canvassing by User:Jeni [3] etc. While the validity of doing so is debatable, some editors had issues with the practice at a previous AfD at [4] where as in this case, the editor only initiated when the numbers weren't going her way. Had that debate not gone the editors way, wouldn't be to cynical to suggest the canvassing would have occurred, with the punt being taken it will result in a net of more votes agreeing with her. 11Expo (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC) In addition User:Jcc has also canvassed [5] etc, further compromising the process. 11Expo (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Yet you have no issue at all with the canvassing by User:Jcc who largely went after people who !voted keep in discussions going back years? We went through this last time, my canvassing is valid as I've notified people who !voted both keep and delete in previous discussions and haven't been selective (it's worth noting, many people have come here and !voted keep after my message.) Ultimately, you're troublemaking and stirring, just like you were last time. Feel free to run to the admins again, you'll get exactly the same response as last time. Jeni (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Canvassing shouldn't occur, period. If another editor did it previously then I would also take issue with it, please stop taking things personally. 11Expo (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] You've read WP:CAN, right? Where does it say that "Canvassing shouldn't occur, period"? If you're going to take issue with it, I'm waiting for you to report User:Jcc for canvassing. (I know you won't, because their style of canvassing was biased towards your viewpoint) Jeni (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC) She of little faith, has been noted above. 11Expo (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Ha, ha ha. I knew this was going to happen. User:Jeni was accused of canvassing once, so as I asked people for their opinions, on their talk pages, out in the open, I knew that she would leap on this. So I prepared an Google Docs. So unfortunately Jeni, the sheet proves that your claim that I "largely went after people who !voted keep in discussions going back years" is wrong; in fact I took great pains to contact equal numbers on both sides, which why in some cases I had to use "discussions going back years" to find such people. Ironically enough, only one person selected to be notified that voted "keep" at a prior discussion as of 18:00 BST has come here, so your claim is completely and utterly disproven- if anything Jeni's canvass where she contacted everyone in a discussion that ended in a delete vote where only two people voted for keep is canvassing. Boom, there's a boomerang for you. Look at 11Expo's talkpage if you have any doubts as to whether Jeni gets on with him/her- the talkpage is cluttered with templated warnings from her. :) Report me if you want User:Jeni, but I think I've proven my point. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] I think you mean WP:BOOMERANG, Jcc 😜.Class455fan1 (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment - Hold up, Something fishy is going on around here, I smell a rat. It's funny how Jeni didn't notify anyone that a deletion discussion was going on for others such as for Route 390 (this happened when I was blocked), route 99 but for this one, there's a notification sent, and it's leaning towards keep. You said when this issue was brought up in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 70 back in February, you said this: "And just FYI, I will do exactly the same thing at the next similar AfD" but you only did it for this one, not for others which occured during February and July (which there was about three or four more during that time). And most of them were nominated by you for deletion. Can you please explain why? Class455fan1 (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] That's probably because Jeni knows it is contentious. If the votes are going her way no need to rock the boat, it’s only when they are not, that the editor decides it’s worth a punt, hence why it was done here and at route 70. End result is that canvassing by 2 editors has compromised the integrity of the process and it may end up being ruled null and void. 11Expo (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] No jcc, your comments are completely incorrect and you make me wonder whether you've even bothered to read WP:CAN. That page lists "editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)" as a valid group to send messages to about a discussion. Not once on that page is it stated that the pool notified of the discussion has to be neutral, as long as they did actually participate in the discussion. Your canvassing is far more of a worry, because you went out of your way to notify specific editors, and not others. If your notifying people who participated in a past discussion, you have to notify all of them, not just an even split. Omni Flames (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] An "even split" could have been down to the fact that some users may have already been notified about the discussion. Also to clarify, I am not saying that anyone is canvassing, I'm just suspicious about it because if these notifications weren't part of the previous discussions since February, why suddenly for this discussion have notifications been sent out?? Class455fan1 (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] @Omni Flames: I'm afraid that I'll have to disagree with you there. I shall ignore the phrase "whether you've even bothered to read WP:CAN", because that is a pretentious bit of twaddle, and instead point you back in that very direction. It says that: appropriate notification is 1) limited (tick, I notified 18 people), 2) Neutral (my message was "Hi! I see that you commented at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/London_Buses_route_X. You may be interested in commenting at this new Article for Deletion nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 53."), 3) Nonpartisan- and this is the important bit. You accused me of votestacking- but the crucial thing is that votestacking is where you selectively notify people (which I did, hands in the air)- but here's the key bit- "to gain a numerical advantage"- which I most definitely did not. It also says "it would be votestacking to selectively notify a disproportionate number of "Keep" voters or a disproportionate number of "Delete" voters" further down the page. This the Google Doc disproves, and finally 4) Open- I did on their talk pages. On the other hand, as Class455fan1 pointed out, take a look at User:Jeni. When the going got a bit rough, she decided to notify a discussion where the result was delete- where instead there had been other recent discussions that resulted in keep that she could have chosen from. She hasn't done this for any bus article AfDwhere the result was leaning towards delete. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY says that one should look at the principle behind the policy, and the clear principle of CANVASS is to avoid promoting one side of the discussion over the other- and I think I've kept to that. In addition, have look at this section on the canvass talk page. jcc (tea and biscuits) 08:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] You'll find that I notified participants in the 4 most recent bus route AfDs rather than trying to cherrypick. It's not my fault that very few bus route AfDs go the way of keep! Jeni (talk) 09:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As noted above I and many others got rid of well over a hundred bus routes here (Lists as well as actual service numbers like this article) .... Other than these buses being in London there's no actual difference between this route and a National Express one that's been deleted, They all still fail GNG and the only reason half of these are kept is because of the enthusiasts ..... I would happily nominate every single bus route on here if I knew I wasn't going to be dragged at DRV over it, If people want articles on this stuff then there's Wikia and god knows what else. Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 16:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Keep' Good article on a notable and well used bus route. Kafuffle (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Bus routes are significant geographic features of a city. They are usually fairly permanent (i.e., they may change every few years, but not every month, so it's possible to keep up with the changes. Some people hee seem to think we have a rule than WP is Not a Gazetteer--no, in fact we have a very fundament al policy in WP:Five pillars that WP "combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. ", Bus routes are mainly discussed in local papers when significant changes are proposed-- and to the extent we admit them as reliable sources for notability, it should possible to find sourcing. The question has nothing to do with the GNG--for the aspect of WP that resembles a traditional encyclopedia , the GNG is usually relevant; for the parts that resemble an almanac or Gazetteer, it is not, because such publication are comprehensive, not selective, and cover every event or featureof theype, not selecting, as encyclopedias do, on the basis of significance or notability. DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A venerable and notable bus route. London bus routes are typically well covered in books, and this one seems to be no exception per the references. If it's true that many of these bus route articles have been destroyed that's a tragedy. I can't believe the heroes and heroines who have been defending these articles have been described as having "no regard for Wikipedia". The purpose of Wikipedia is to present the sum of all knowledge , not to destroy it! Perhaps a SNG is needed to further protect bus routes, we can't expect arbitrator DGG to arrive and explain policy at each of these discussions. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now, or consider Redirect to List of bus routes in London. While a majority of London bus articles aren't notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia - route 53 is one of the more prominent ones. There isn't a great deal of secondary sources in this article, as it stands currently, but this can be easily improved with historical publications to satisfy the WP:N standard. Ajf773 (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The "further cited history" mentioned above that has just been added to the article as a reference is a 1996 book entitled "The Motorbus in Central London" by Kenneth Warren. The topic of the book is the motorized bus in London - this does not appear to be coverage of Route 53. It is not on Google Books either. This book is appropriate for coverage in a general article about the London bus system, but I am not seeing how it applies here.

I don't agree with DGG. Ever since I have been editing on Wikipedia it has been - and still is - an encyclopedia. Perhaps for clarification reviewing the What Wikipedia is not page should help. We garner information from Gazettes, Almanacs, or other such publications, but every topic that has an article is based on notability - WP:GNG - as an encyclopedia on par with Encyclopedia Britannica (and we have given them a run for their money) - unless some aspect of SNG squeaks it by.

Also, the paragraph of the Five Pillars to which DGG seems to refer at the outset says: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" [6] in Bold Blue. Then it goes on to say "It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". To me this says that as an encyclopedia it combines these things. It does not say we have a part that is a gazette and we have a part that is an almanac and we have a part that are baseball schedules and statistics and so on.

The aggregate of all bus systems in London is notable. This is very different from one bus route that lacks indications of notability. Also, the information discussed in local or regional newspapers is mundane and does not indicate notability. How is notification of a change in a bus route notable? How is construction on a bus route causing a detour notable? Wikipedia is not a directory and is not an indiscriminate collection of information. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I apologize for casting any other editors in a negative light. I did a strike thru of the above comment that I made during my Ivote. At AfD, it is best to discuss content and editing, not other editors. ----- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Quinn No worries mate, we all get a bit carried away in the heat of the moment :). Class455fan1 (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor who added the text from the 1986 "The Motorbus in Central London", the book gives a rundown of the history of about 40 of the older bus routes in London, with each having a 2-3 page history section, so is an appropriate source for this and similar articles should they be deemed worthy of retention. Agree that fancruft, timetable replication and trivia does periodically creep into these articles and should be weeded out. 11Expo (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: do other bus routes in London have Wiki articles? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  All of these ones do, at least: Category:Bus routes in London (see bottom of the page for the category link) Ajf773 (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  There are more London bus routes that *don't* have an article than those that do. Jeni ^(talk) 07:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Redirect to the list. Wikipedia is not the sum of all human knowledge. There are many areas for which reliable sources could be found which are not considered worth including. Primary schools for instance have to be of outstanding interest to get an article. Shopping malls have to be of substantial size to be covered, likewise companies. The policies WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTGUIDE have a bearing on this. Most of these articles have been created by bus fans with little or no encyclopedic content. They are often sourced to news stories about incidents that just happened to be on a route rather than about the actual route. Notability is not inherited from such things. We do not need an article on every ordinary route. Neither do arguments about Wikipedia being a gazeteer have much bearing on this. Gazetteers tend to cover the generalities of travel in an area rather than reproducing detailed directory information which is subject to frequent change.Charles (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with Charles. This stuff is better handled as an expanded list, with spin-outs in the event of an unusually meritorious case. That is clearly not the case here. Eusebeus (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic and inappropriate commentary on editor behavior. Andrew Davidson is warned to not repeat such behavior at AFD again. Any conduct concerns should be raised at an appropriate forum, such as WP:ANI. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed by Coffee. Please do not modify it.
Notice that Eusebeus has not edited Wikipedia since last September – nearly a year ago. He might prefer that this topic be handled in a different way but he's not going to be exerting himself to make it happen, is he? We should stick with what we have rather than canvassing wishful thinking from editors who have moved on. Andrew D. (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] Best stick to discussing the topic rather than the merits of particular editors. Charles (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] Charles was canvassed too. Andrew D. (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] Andrew, you're sinking below a line too deep for even you now. Please try to stick to the topic, I'm certain there's a book out there somewhere about this bus route you can link us to in order to irrevocably demonstrate some inherent notability which demands Wikipedia keep this from being deleted. Do you think this line of (poor and confused) diffs is beneficial to this deletion discussion? If you think editors have misbehaved, this is not the correct venue, but I'm certain you are already well aware of that. Please stop disrupting and derailing these discussions with your non-sequiturs. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] You may not realise this, but you are addressing the Colonel, one of the finest and most scholarly editors on all of Wikipedia. He does not do non-sequiturs. Let's have some respect! FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] You may not realize this but no one cares, Stop trolling and go do something productive for fucksake. –Davey2010Talk 22:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as still nothing substantially convincing for its own article, this would be best mentioned together as one article. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Update 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 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest using these sources to write some encyclopedic content on the more historic routes at Buses in London or as a prose introduction to the list of routes. That would avoid having individual pages with all their promotional links and guide material.Charles (talk) 21:40, 5 August 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.