Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 394 (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 keep. Courcelles 23:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 394

edit
AfDs for this article:
London Buses route 394 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Do bus routes really need a separate article? When I added bus routes to an article, it was wiped off citing notability issues, and another time saying that Wikipedia is NOT a directory. An article, or a list will all bus routes with destinations, routes, a rollover map maybe, might be handy, but individual article PER route sounds silly to me. Please by all means, let me know your opinion. Regards, -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete—I'm inclined to agree with the nominator. There's nothing specific to this article to establish notability for this route. The list of bus routes in London covers the pertinent information from this article already. If a notes column were added to the table on that list, the few historical facts could be added to that page as well. In the meantime, a footnote for that information could be appended to the service provider name in the table. On the whole, this article though does not satisfy WP:GNG, so delete, or redirect it back to the list. Even the one article (the birth on the bus) doesn't establish notability. Imzadi 1979 → 06:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Imzadi1979 would be quite right that this wouldn't establish notability if it were the only source in the article. Combined with this 670-word feature about the route in a reliable magazine, however, there's enough to meet WP:GNG by a decent margin. Also covered offline in Buses Magazine but not included in the article for some reason. If this is kept I'll use that piece to expand the history, which is currently a little bare. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Buses in London. Are there specific reasons why this bus is particularly well known above all others in London by the local community? If there are notable social issues or history surrounding this route, then I think they would sit better as a paragraph in another article that describes that. --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that's a completely invented set of criteria based on your opinions, and completely ignores the general notability guidelines. If Time Out magazine, Buses magazine and the Daily Telegraph all consider the route worthy of note, so should we. That's how WP:N works - a bright-line test based on consensus established by the community as a whole, rather than a set of arbitrary criteria based on one person's opinions. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. I'm not sure the Daily Telegraph article considers the specific route anything more than a mere incidental detail and The Time Out article reads like an advertisment. However, I'm happy to accept that the Buses Magazine article can push it into acceptable notability. Generally, I like to see articles (both on WP, other sites, in source, wherever) that describe why a route is special, rather than just a simple account of where it goes! --Ritchie333 (talk) 08:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • (Strictly tongue-in-cheek)... would that be like seeing articles that describe why a road is special, rather than a simple account of where it goes? PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Buses Magazine pieces are in the article now. Although both are mostly about the mechanics of the route, they do devote a fair number of words to its unusual history (introduced by an operator as a low-frequency route providing new links, but so successful that it was brought under the wing of TfL and massively expanded) and the rare vehicles run on it when it began. It seems like a fairly special route to me, if only at a local/industry-wide level. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' - While one source, depending on how in-depth on the topic it is, can be sufficient to pass WP:GNG, Alzarian16 and demonstrated two in-depth sources on this topic so there's no question at this point.--Oakshade (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the coverage in Time Out and Buses magazine are sufficient to meet GNG. I agree that the Daily Telegraph mention on its own would be nowhere near enough, as the route is inconsequential to the story. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:57, 23 June 2011 (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_394_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138032524"