Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 384

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 delete. Scott Mac (Doc) 13:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 384

London Buses route 384 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another non-notable London bus-route, with neither a claim to notability nor any evidence of notability per WP:GNG. It os already included in List of bus routes in London, so there is no need for a merger.

I PRODded it, but the PROD was contested on the grounds of a pre-existing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport. However, there is no discussion there of individual bus routes, other than a few comments such as this wholly unjustified praise for London Buses route 187, an article which offers no evidence at all of the route's notability. One editor is insisting that these articles should be redirected rather than deleted, but 187 is praised as an example of a redirect which was converted back to an article. Rather than have this sort of non-notable material resurrected, a consensus here to delete will requires proper scrutiny of notability before it is overturned.

The editor who removed this PROD also contested a series of PRODs for West Midlands bus routes for which there was no evidence of notability, such as this one this. If WikiProjects don't follow accepted standards of notability, and editors block the use of lightweight deletion mechanisms such as PROD, then inevitably articles gets brought to AFD which should be deleted with less effort from the community.

If editors want to keep this article, please can can we have some actual evidence of notability per WP:GNG rather than the repeated cycle of procedural objections which have disrupted other similar AFDs? Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do try reading the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read, fell asleep. Still entitled to state my opinion, regardless of whatever rubbish you come up with. Jeni (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So where is this discussion of individual bus routes? Is there any purpose to your disruption other than trying to keep the sort of zero-notability you defended here? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Oops, missed this one. Essentially per BrownHairedGirl. GNG is an important guideline and shouldn't discarded lightly. It is important for good reason. Without significant coverage in reliable sources, it is usually impossible to have an encyclopaedic article about a subject that is properly verified. These bus route articles are a case in point: they are littered with original research and for all we know could be totally inaccurate. The reason they are littered with original research is because the reliable sources aren't there. For that reason, the original research is fatal and unsalvageable.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A directory listing in a bus schedule does [[WP:NOT}not justify]] a stand-alone encyclopedia article. Edison (talk) 06:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The new source I added is reliable, sencondary and shows significant coverage. Up to this point a redirect or delete would have been fair, but it does now show some notability. The lack of notability was partially my fault for not finding this source when I added the other 3. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Which source? Londonbus routes? looks like a hobby site. Not a reliable source.--Crossmr (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The site covering the contract award is reliable and independent. Londonbusroutes was already in place before I made the edit I was referring to. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete or redirect. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources.--Crossmr (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Mkativerata. Resolute 01:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - non-notable and lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Orderinchaos 17:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable third party sources - name drops only. Karanacs (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all information contained in this article is verifiable. The majority of London bus routes are notable, and the system is notable. Dew Kane (talk) 04:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • EXTREMELY STRONG DELETE!!!! Because anyone who wants to keep this article is the same as Adolf Hitler. Why do I say that? Because he thought the British people were stupid. "A nation of shopkeepers," I think he said. Or was that Napoleon? Well, no matter. Anyway, keeping these articles on London bus routes sends the message that we think the British are too stupid to get this information to the world without the help of "an encyclopedia anyone can edit." Not as bad as the London Blitz, but at heart the same.Steve Dufour (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't that true of any article, since reliable sources are needed for one to be created? Do you want the whole of Wikipedia abandoned, or is there something special about these particular articles? Alzarian16 (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between an article, which involves creative input to explain its topic, and a directory which just gives raw information, such as where buses stop and how often they run. If any London bus route has any importance beyond that, important as that is to its riders, then its article should be kept. Of course I was joking by using Hitler as an example. I missed April Fool's Day by one day. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disclaimer (as per talk page request) Fans of the London bus system are not really Nazis. This was a joke. However, I still think bus routes are not suitable topics for WP articles since they are only of interest to potential riders.Steve Dufour (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

1.) While I still support this being kept, even if the majority say delete, it should be merged to a parent article, and the edit history retained, so in the future, someone can dig up what is already written in an old version, and improve upon it.
2.) Steve Defour's comments are extremely offensive and should not be considered in the final closing. He should possibly be blocked for them. Being of interest only to a small crowd, such as bus riders, is not a good reason NOT to include an article. I was in London in 1999 on a trip and I rode the buses there. I do not see any guideline that says an article must be deleted if it is only of interest to a small number of people. Dew Kane (talk) 04:51, 4 April 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/London_Buses_route_384&oldid=1073376482"