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. This is more of a procedural keep, as the bus routes are of varying notability, and should not be listed in a bundled discussion –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Essex bus route 804 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

While some bus routes are notable, school bus routes certainly are not. jenuk1985 (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 603 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

London Buses route 605 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

London Buses route 606 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

London Buses route 607 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

London Buses route 611 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

London Buses route 632 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

London Buses route 640 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have also added the above routes to the AfD, also school routes jenuk1985 (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, brother. Delete per nom. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure if the person nominating is supposed to "vote", but if so... Delete jenuk1985 (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Come on guys, this is a charming essay about a really interesting little bus route. I could read the list of bus stops over and over again ... Delete per nom. Are there really any notable bus routes? I am really having trouble thinking what would make one notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless my school bus routes all get articles too. Otherwise I'm taking my ball and going home! No, seriously, what in the world makes this bus route notable? Did something horrible or criminal happen to bring it into public view? Nope. Just a bus route. Non-notable. Wikipedia is not the giant-brain from Futurama, we don't need every scrap of human knowledge in here.Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: My humor should not be viewed as diminishing the work of those who created this article. A ton of work went into it, and it is unfortunate that the route isn't notable, because that is a lot of work going down the tube. All the more reason to make yourself familiar with WP:Notability before creating an article. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jo7hs2. A lot of work, full of information, well laid out. Unfortunate that it does not meet the notability criteria. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's worth noting that this isn't against all bus routes, as I believe that some routes, with a notable history should be kept. I will be going through UK bus routes over the next few days to nominate what appear to be non-notable routes. jenuk1985 (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Keep I only looked up the first one, but found this: [1]. I suspect enough could be gotten together to make a good article that meets relevant policies. And frankly, I think bus routes in major cities might well be the kind of thing we should have. These are NOT school routes at least not in the sense I'd think of them. They are public bus routes that are in part targeted toward the travel students might need. Hobit (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment In which case, how is a bus route that only runs once or twice a day notable enough to have its own article? jenuk1985 (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The issue is sources. And it seems likely that a merged article would have enough. Hobit (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• List of bus routes in London - A "parent" article already exists jenuk1985 (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Looks like it belongs in the parent article. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there should be one for the 600 series. The main list article seems a bit, well, useless. Some more information (purpose of route, full time, controversies, etc.) would be good. Hobit (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Are you discussing the 804 article, or other articles? Since there are now several, it might get confusing it we discuss the other nominations here. Also, valid point that this isn't a school route, but rather a school targeted route. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other ones. You're right, it is a bit of a mess. They have different parent articles, yes? Hobit (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I should have clarified, original article has a parent list at List of bus routes in Essex jenuk1985 (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Close and default to Keep - These are way too many bus routes to batch together in one AfD and I'm troubled that the nom put several London bus routes up for AfD but choose to entitle it "Articles for deletion/Essex bus route 804", the only non-London route nominated. That might deter many users who would be inclined not to delete London bus routes to not bother clicking the AfD link because they're indifferent to Essex bus routes. --Oakshade (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find any other school services on Wikipedia, I have looked. jenuk1985 (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Close (in agreement w/above), default to Keep, and either Merge or Re-AfD separately: I'm changing my position. I also am not comfortable with the confusing tangle that this multiple AfD has become, so I think we should close the AfD. Afterwards, there are multiple possible resolutions, such as merging the non-notable bus routes into the parent articles individually, and with discussion on their talk pages; re-AfD nominating the articles separately and distinctly, and not involving the individual discussions with each other, etc... Jo7hs2 (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAllow me to clarify. While I'm not always opposed to bundling AfD discussions, in this case I don't think that the articles are sufficiently linked to be discussed in this fashion. The only connection between the Essex and London articles are that they are all bus routes. At a minimum, I would prefer to see this discussion carried out separately for the Essex and London articles. The Essex bus route 804 should have one AfD, and the London articles should be discussed separately from it. That way, we aren't discussing the merits of all bus route articles, but rather the merits of the individual articles based on their notability. I could see bundling the London articles together, although I'd prefer if that were avoided as well. Jo7hs2 (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I am o.k. with extending my delete vote to all the bus routes, just because I have a lot of trouble seeing why any bus route could be notable. This is a personal opinion, which I would obviously drop if there were reliable independent sources proving notability. But this seems like a subject where there should be a guideline. Lately in AfD I have come across debates about "lists of people who come from a town", "places of worship", "schools", "soccer teams", "charitable organizations" and now "bus routes", all of which could use some well-considered rule-of-thumb-type guidelines. Does anyone know of a place where these could be found or created? Aymatth2 (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin - Above user already voted. --Oakshade (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I voted twice. Once on the first route, then on all the others when they were added. This AfD has got quite confused. The closing decision should be made on force of argument rather than a vote count. On this one, I am very marginal. Technically, I don't think it qualifies. But I remember "Pretty John Watts, We are troubled with rats, Will you drive them out of the house? We have mice, too, in plenty, That feast in the pantry, But let them stay And nibble away, What harm in a little brown mouse?" Aymatth2 (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD's are not a vote, so it doesn't really matter if you already "voted" in this discussion. WP:Articles for Deletion Opinions shift or are modified when trying to reach consensus. Regardless, this AfD has gotten to be such a mess that I think we need to close it, as I noted above, despite the fact that I think the article probably should be deleted or merged. This AfD went from discussing a single article to discussing a whole wad of articles and the merits of this type of article, and AfD does not seem to be the best place for this discussion. Jo7hs2 (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Sometimes closing admins brush through these without noticing the repeated user signatures. Just making sure. Users shouldn't be adding bold "keep" or "delete" after they already done so. --Oakshade (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valid point. It does make it confusing to read. Jo7hs2 (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck out my deletes. Agree with Jo7hs2 comments: this is not the place the discuss the more general question, this debate had got confusing, probably the article should be deleted or merged, but let's leave it for now. Aymatth2 (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Since bus deregulation, bus routes are much too changeable to warrant having WP articles. They are fundamentally unmaintainable. The operators will maintain their sites, but they will not keep WP up to date. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

one of the key virtues of Wikipedia is that we can deal with rapidly changing material, as long as there re editors interested in keeping it current. That's one of the aspects of NOT PAPER. DGG (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 607, which is not a school route. It should not have been included in the nomination. Whatever people's attitude to bus routes in general, this one is of a different degree of notability. A careless nomination and a careless discussion too, since that does not seem to have been noticed. I'm not sure where I stand on bus routes, and I don't know London in detail, but I did read all the articles. DGG (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind that the extra articles were bundled after some editors had made a decision on the original Essex bus route article. Jo7hs2 (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Close as Keep These appear to be of varying degrees of significance and should not be bundled together without more careful evaluation. --Polaron | Talk 16:11, 23 January 2009 (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.