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 redirect to SmartBus#Routes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

902 (PTV Bus)[edit]

902 (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)

Starting a deletion discussion about this because I do not want to create an edit war. This topic does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. We are also not a guide or directory, it is not our job to list every single public and private bus route that exists in perpetuity. For example, not every single Manhattan bus route has or deserves an article. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 03:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a re-creation of an article discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Route 902, Victorian Bus Route, where there was an unambiguous consensus to redirect. JBW (talk) 10:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. JBW (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I originally closed this discussion as a speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G4 at 09:49, 23 October 2022. However, the validity of that deletion has been questioned at deletion review, and rather than waste time letting it be discussed first at deletion review and then at a new AfD, it seems to me more constructive to just reopen this original AfD. I am relisting so that the discussion still gets a full week.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to SmartBus#Routes for lacking signficant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. As of this version of the article, there are 10 references.

References 1,2, 9, and 10 are bus route/timetable which is useful to verify facts but utterly useless for establishing notability

References 3 and 4 are from the same blog, an unreliable source

References 5 and 7 are not independent as the route is a Victoria government service contracted to Kinetic to operate

Reference 6 and 8 are about the award of contract and make no mention of route 902

So in total, the sourcing in the article has exactly zero sources that contribute to establishing notability. --Whpq (talk) 12:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to SmartBus#Routes. Nothing has changed since the last AfD except that the article creator has decided to go all-out to try and keep a standalone article, without the requisite understanding of notability that might actually give said article a chance at a standalone page. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As there is enough reliable sources to deem this article notable with primary sources backed up with secondary source. People contesting for deletion will continously suggest this article to be deleted regardless of whether there are enough reliable sources or not. Whpq has consistently made source assesments with minimal research to benefit his push to what he wants to do with the article, most deletion attempts are likely just a case of (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) (talk) 1:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@NotOrrio: Thanks for your vote! However, you appear to misunderstand that sources don't just have to be reliable, they also need to be independent, usually secondary, and constitute of significant coverage. How are these requirements met here for at least two sources? Further, re-creating the article with little improvement and stating that accurate, policy-based rationales are WP:IDONTLIKEIT is unhelpful in helping the article retention. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 07:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue your bad-faith aspersions (such as the one right here) and refactoring other editors' comments, you time on this project will come to an end very shortly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to SmartBus#Routes per Whpq's analysis. The refs, a collection of non-SIGCOV bus routes and timetables, trivial mentions, and governmental websites (non-independent and non-SIGCOV) fails WP:GNG. The article creator attempts to state that the redirect comments are motivated by WP:IDONTLIKEIT after their keep rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Route 902, Victorian Bus Route was considered by others at WP:ILIKEIT. However, they are unable to articulate a policy-based rationale on which two or three refs demonstrate WP:GNG being met. VickKiang (talk) 07:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to SmartBus#Routes. I feel like we are just repeating the same points that were raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Route 902, Victorian Bus Route, there has been no new arguments raised or valid reliable secondary sources provided since that time that even go close to satisfying WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 11:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to SmartBus#Routes per above. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 18:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to SmartBus#Routes as above. Deus et lex (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per the consensus at the previous AfD and Whpq's analysis. I entirely agree with Dan arndt that none of the new sources contribute to establishing notability, and no new reasons to keep the article have been provided in this discussion. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2022 (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.