Talk:London Buses route 328

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the London Buses route 328 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Redirect, 23 March 2021, see discussion.
no consensus, 25 October 2016, see discussion.

London Transport Low‑importance

	London transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transport in London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.London TransportWikipedia:WikiProject London TransportTemplate:WikiProject London TransportLondon Transport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on London Buses route 328. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130622122516/http://www.transitsystems.com.au/articles-t-t/313-tower-transit-announces-first-group-partial-acquisition-9-april-2013 to http://www.transitsystems.com.au/articles-t-t/313-tower-transit-announces-first-group-partial-acquisition-9-april-2013

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I added the notability flag only to have it removed by Jcc. The previous AfD closed as no consensus meaning notability is not established. Nothing significant has been added since the AfD therefore the flag was valid. Ajf773 (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What it means is that your ongoing campaign to eradicate London bus route articles by flagging them as not notable and then deleting them a couple of months later won't work in this case, the previous consensus not to delete will override. Morteinmeil (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The articles aren't being eradicated as the history is still intact. They are being redirected due to lack of established notability, which in this case has not been affirmed in the previous AfD as it closed without consensus. Ajf773 (talk) 06:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeni and Morteinmeil: Further to what Morteinmeil said above, the AfD found that there was no consensus regarding this article's notability. Hence there is no consensus to add a notability tag to the top, which has been further demonstrated by two editors (myself and Morteinmeil) protesting its addition. If a notability tag is contested, it should go to Articles for deletion, not edit warred back in (per the instructions at Template:Notability). Please don't edit war to add it back in when there is no consensus to do so, demonstrated both here and at the AFD discussion. jcc (tea and biscuits) 10:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not correct. The no consensus outcome means notability has not been established and tagging is permitted. Otherwise the article would be kept without a tag or deleted.Charles (talk) 11:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlesdrakew: Ridiculous. Re-read WP:STATUSQUO. The article was without the notability tag, two users have contested it. The article should be kept in its status quo, i.e. without a notability tag. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FeydHuxtable, Andrew Davidson, and Class455: Pinging all the other people who discussed the notability at AfD since we seem to be relitigating the AfD discussion. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STATUSQUO applies to disputed article content. I see no reason to think it applies to maintenance tags. I still believe the tag permitted under wider policy and not requiring local consensus here.Charles (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcc:. The article at it stands has no evidence of notability so the tag is completely acceptable. If you think the tag should be removed, then fix the article by making it notable. Ajf773 (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)7[reply]

@Ajf773: That's just your opinion, contradicted by the AfD. Three editors now have contested the need for the tag, thus there is no consensus to have a tag. A tag was not previously present on the article, so we should revert to the status quo of not having one. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcc:. Nothing about the AfD has been contradicted. Three editors have also reverted the edits to remove the tag (myself included). Ajf773 (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus for the tag and so it should go as our readership is not interested in such clutter and the interested editors are well aware of the issue. Per WP:TMC, "Cleanup tags are meant to be temporary notices that lead to an effort to fix the problem, not a permanent badge of shame to show that you disagree with the article..." Andrew D. (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then fix the problem. Ajf773 (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adding the tag gives editors time to fix the article before it goes to AfD. As the least notable articles are likely to have few watchers, and those few are likely to have conflicts of interest, it would be perverse if local talk page consensus was needed to add a tag.Charles (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Half correct. There is indeed no need to gain consensus before the initial addition of a tag. Just like one almost never needs to gain consensus before boldly making other sorts of edit to article space. But if the edit is reverted, good collaboration would probably be to follow bold , revert, discuss. I.e. accept that your change hasn't gained consensus, and don't edit war to add it back in, especially if you are reverted multiple times. As per the AfD, the sources already in the article seem more than sufficient to establish notability on this valuable article, so the tag serves no purpose.

Now that a fourth editor seems to have removed the tag, it would ideal if no one edit wars by trying to restore it without first gaining consensus here on talk. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per FeydHuxtable, the tag is not required. I think we should put the notability of bus routes debate to bed, as it has been rumbling on for at least a few years now and more recent bus route articles tagged for deletion have been kept. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 11:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD failed to establish notability so the tag is justified. Local consensus here is not needed for keeping it. The only way to "put the matter to bed" is to take it back to AfD, which I will most likely do in a while.Charles (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlesdrakew:, please deed the advice of the 5 editors who have either reverted your changes, or said here that the tag is unnecessary. "Questions of notability can be resolved through discussion" is an excerpt from the relevant wiki-wide policy, the discussion here has shown no consensus for the addition of a notability tag, in terms of pure numbers in fact, a consensus not to have a notability tag. As numerous others have told you above, please stop edit warring. Everyone else has disengaged, apart from you. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The new content added by 11Expo, still doesn't show evidence of notability so the tag is valid. It is not notable to know how many times a bus route has changed operators and between whom. A reference to a bus operators lost property section on their website is not a source. I have not disengaged from this discussion jcc. I don't get why you are so against the addition of a maintenance tag purported to improve the article and prevent it from being nominated for deletion again. Ajf773 (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajf773: Thanks for replying here and not just continuing the edit war. The discussion here has shown no consensus for the addition of a notability tag, and if anything a consensus not to have a notability tag based on pure numbers. You don't think it's notable, fine. But more people disagree with you, and think that the article has demonstrated notability, than agree. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a ballot.Charles (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of the "numbers" of people against improving the article (by adding a notability tag) have actually said the article is notable. And the previous AfD closed as no consensus which seems quite obvious to me. I don't really want to start another AfD to end this argument but it's looking more likely it will need to happen. Ajf773 (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]