Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citybuzz

Citybuzz

[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)

Non-notable WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussions of similar recent deletions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 1; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 7 --wooden superman 08:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Shellwood (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination this fails WP:GNG as there is no significant non-WP:ROTM coverage in WP:RS. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added several sources and notability is now established per WP:GNG. ROTM is an essay, is subjective, and is trumped by GNG, a guideline. Route is not comparable to articles like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 7 as this one has sufficient sourcing available online. Garuda3 (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though perhaps, this article ought to be moved to Brighton & Hove bus routes 37 and 37B as I couldn't find any coverage on "City Buzz" or "Citybuzz" which may be what prompted this AfD. Garuda3 (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your claim that WP:GNG has now been met for this routine bus route. The sources you've added are from local news sites and hardly meet WP:SIGCOV. --wooden superman 15:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources in question added above just confirm that the route exists, that it will continue to exist, or that it will change the timetable on which it exists. This verifies that the route exists, but it doesn't contribute notability as the significance of the route is never discussed. BrigadierG (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't need to discuss the "significance" of something. That's subjective. They just need to discuss it, per WP:GNG. Garuda3 (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be secondary commentary. The above are all dependent sources that are basically just reprints of the local travel authority saying that they're doing a thing. And secondly, the coverage is WP:ROUTINE which states "news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for an article". BrigadierG (talk) 10:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ROUTINE refers to events. This article is about a bus route, not an event, so that policy isn't relevant here. I disagree with the need for commentary - that may be appropriate for an artistic work like a film or book but doesn't feel applicable to something practical, in this case a bus route but also buildings, railway stations etc. Garuda3 (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]