This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ajf773 (talk | contribs) at 08:30, 27 October 2022 (redirect). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 08:30, 27 October 2022 by Ajf773 (talk | contribs) (redirect)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)901 (PTV Bus)
New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- How to contribute
- Introduction to deletion process
- Guide to deletion (glossary)
- Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
- 901 (PTV Bus) (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)
This bus route is not the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. Redirect to Smart Bus#Routes was reverted by article creator with no improvements to show the route is notable. Whpq (talk) 03:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Note: Dan arndt has created a second deletion discussion for this article, at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/901 (PTV Bus) (2nd nomination). I am copying his comment to this discussion, and I shall then delete that duplicate AfD page. JBW (talk) 10:13, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note 2:I created a second deletion discussion only because the article's creator blanked this AfD discussion and removed the header from the article, as a result I was unaware that this AfD existed. Dan arndt (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to Smart Bus#Routes. Article fails WP:GNG, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. A bus timetable is not an acceptable source. Department of Transport (Victoria) and Kinetic Melbourne are both primary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. Dan arndt (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- I have already stated to you the following on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/903 (PTV Bus). A bus timetable is a reliable and acceptable source for determing what stops the bus route serves, to back it up for there were two sources for this a primary source (PTV) and a secondary Source (Moovit) NotOrrio. I know one of the arguments to avoid using in deletion is to not mention other articles but I want to show that stop information used as a source for where the bus serves is the norm for wikipeida bus route pages for example https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=London_Buses_route_1&direction=next&oldid=983282445 uses the source https://tfl.gov.uk/bus/route/1 for the section current route.
NotOrrio (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment, a bus timetable is perfectly acceptable to use as a source for determing what stops a bus route has however they aren't reliable or acceptable sources to establish the bus routes notability. In respect to the London bus route you have referred to, it is notable because it demonstrates there is significant coverage, not mentions in passing, in multiple independent secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect per nom. This is not independently notable, and no amount of bludgeoning, attempting to circumvent AfD, and deception by the article creator will change this. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect per nom. Just another run of the mill bus route that doesn't require special treatment with its own article. Ajf773 (talk) 08:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)