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. --Haemo 06:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 1[edit]

London_Buses_route_1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Renominated, wikipedia does not need articles with , basiclly not alot of text, they should be combined into one, as is being done with the Stagecoach Devon routes for example. Also, i feel if one or two of these members were to cease off of wikipedia,then the articles would never be updated at all, thus misleading people. See wp:not I'm nominating along with this every single london bus route page listed below.

To clarify why im nominating: WP:NOT a travel guide This si why, wiki doesn't need all the infomation on route details etc.

• London Buses route 2
• London Buses route 3
• London Buses route 4
• London Buses route 5
• London Buses route 6
• London Buses route 7
• London Buses route 8
• London Buses route 9
• London Buses route 9 (Heritage)
• London Buses route 11
• London Buses route 12
• London Buses route 13
• London Buses route 15
• London Buses route 15 (Heritage)
• London Buses route 16
• London Buses route 25
• London Buses route 30
• London Buses route 34
• London Buses route 43
• London Buses route 47
• London Buses route 54
• London Buses route 96
• London Buses route 122
• London Buses route 199
• London Buses route 208
• London Buses route 360
• London Buses route 372
• London Buses route 474
• London Buses route 484
• London Buses route 492
• London Buses route X26

Thenthornthing 23:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete, as Nominator, as per reasons above. Thenthornthing 21:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep and Close - There are far too many varied articles here to be batch AfD'd. Many of these lines are either historic or major arteries in the London's transportation system (one of the largest on earth). Nothing has changed since any of previous AfD's, whether they were for one or two lines or the first ill-advised "all London bus routes" Afd. --Oakshade 00:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per WP:NOT#TRAVEL. I think bus routes are in violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL. Transwiki to WikiTravel might not be possible due to them using a difference license Corpx 04:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these aren't just directory listings and some, London Buses route 4 and London Buses route 11 for examples, have encyclopedic history content, well beyond the scope of travel listings or restaurant phone numbers as what WP:NOT#TRAVEL stipulates against. --Oakshade 06:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The route was affected by WW2, as well as some strikes. I would not necessarily call that encyclopedic content. I'd say the same for a bus route from any Metro. Corpx 14:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would. And that content is certainly beyond what WP:NOT#TRAVEL is meant to avoid (cafe phone numbers, etc.). And that's just one route you mentioned. Others have even more (some much more) encyclopedic content. --Oakshade 16:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep and close as specified by Oakshade. It never does any good to try to do this--it amounts to a=trying to propose a policy that no bus route can ever be encyclopedic--and there is so such provision for any class of article whatsoever. DGG (talk) 05:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If you can find any sources giving "significant coverage" to any of these routes, they should be crossed off, but I think a group nom is appropriate so that I do not have to copy/paste my response x times Corpx 05:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The outcome of the Stagecoach Devon articles' debates was to delete them all, this is exactly the same situation, except it's London ratehr than Exeter, if it werent for the two or three editors these pages would never be updated , and besides which, it's an encyclopedic, BUS ROUTES ARE NOT ENCYCLOPEDIC! Thenthornthing 13:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep this AfD, then, if consensus exists, merge. The nomination for this AfD states that the aim is that "they should be combined into one". So why is this an AfD? From WP:MERGE: "Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed.". Candidates for merging should not go be AfD'd, otherwise, we'd lose all the data in them, and there'd be nothing to merge! Speedy keep & close this AfD, and start the merging process. -- simxp (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The right place for information on current bus routes is in the London Transport website. However, this article has a modest amount of historical content, which may be worth preserving and may not be available elsewhere. I suspect that some of these routes in fact have had a longterm stability. Accordingly, a History of London Transport bus routes must just pass the test of being encyclopaedic. If so, the answer is merge, eliminating all excessive detail. Peterkingiron 17:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these articles have far too much content to be merged. If such an action was done, it would be a matter of days before an "Article is too long" tag to be placed onto it. --Oakshade 22:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep for this AfD, then start a new discussion about merger or Transwikification. They are not timetables and provide the historical context of the routes. London Buses route 9 (Heritage) and London Buses route 15 (Heritage), being the last operated by the iconic Routemaster, are notable in their own right. Dbromage [Talk] 23:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because of the history. Probably remove the detailed route. --NE2 10:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep notable enough... too big to merge, and too notable to delete. --84.45.219.185 10:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't think IP addresses could vote... Thenthornthing 21:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As long as they explain their reasoning, anons are perfectly welcome to participate in AFDs, especially since AFD != voting.--69.118.235.97 21:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought AFD = reaching consensus, not voting. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 13:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • IPs can vote, they just can't nominate. AfD = voting, but it is not decided by majority rule. --David Shankbone 04:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The London Bus routes have a long history and are notable. Alot of the indivisual bus routes are mentioned in books and on websites. It cannot be merged into a single article as it would be too long. However I do agree that the current route section in the articles, detailing each stop, may be considered advertising.Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 16:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - as per the recent Exeter example. Single bus routes are not notable, and "mentioned" in books and/or websites is not enough. - fchd 20:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Single bus routes can be notable and many of these are. Whatever happened on the Exeter article (a very small city as compared to London, the most populated city in Europe) does not hold some kind of precedent over other articles. --Oakshade 22:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability must be established by "significant coverage" from independent sources, which I do not see in these Corpx 22:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Comment' Alot of websites and some books do cover the indivisual bus routes. Some cover them in quite alot of detail. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 13:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I still fail to see how these articles anything but travel guides (they all seem to have "Current Route" info) with a few paragraphs of background on when and how the route came into existence. No where do I see any assertion of notability. Quite frankly I fail to see how any bus route could be considered notable, unless the route itself were involved in a major historical event. Being a part of something that happened to the whole of London (i.e. WW2 bombing) does not provide notability for the route itself; Plenty of thing were destroyed during World War II, that in and of itself does not make a subject notable. As far being "the last route to carry the Routemaster", that might be enough to be uniquely notable, but that honor can only fall to one route; the rest must assert notability on their own. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 23:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep some redirect Although in this case this can be treated case by case (article by article) so this is a complex vote I'm doing here. To be kept are especially those that have a more lengthy and notable history as well as the most touristic and busier routes. The routes that has virtually nothing or passes only in mostly non-notable areas or is not busy at all should be just redirected to the article that as the list of bus. Notable bus routes for major cities that have significant history or has large purposes should be added too (i.e New York, Toronto, Vancouver, Paris, Hong Kong, etc.).JForget 23:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Looks like a well-ordered collection of trivia. Individual pages fail the notability test. If there's any valuable historical information, put it on the company page and delete the rest. For this number of pages, I wouldn't call that a merge. If he company page gets too big, edit it down and save what's valuable - there's nothing wrong with giving a page a haircut. 00:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep To anyone who travels about London, each bus route is highly notable.--Bedivere 19:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -Yes to anyoen who lives in London, Wikipedia could be used ar more effectively than ridiculous articles about "The route number goes so and so place" Thats not useful its a blooming travel guide! Other websites cater for that, not Wikipedia! Thenthornthing 20:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Excuse my ignorance, but what policy requires an article to be useful?--Bedivere 20:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment None, but if it's not useful is it really worthy of being on wikipedia? Thenthornthing 20:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• London is the most traveled to city on earth. If it's notable and useful there, it makes Wikipedia more effective. Plus most of these aren't just route descriptions but include the histories of the lines. --Oakshade 22:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to closing administrator Since this AfD has begun, there has not by any AfD tag or notice on any of these articles. This is completely in violation of WP:AFD procedures I and II and gave no article readers any indication that these pages were up for deletion. --Oakshade 22:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There is one one the London Buses route 1 page, and the others are simply ones which would be deleted with it by discussion here. Tags have been placed on all articles now. I do wish people would stop trying to find pety excuses on why there beloved bus articles should be kept. Thenthornthing 07:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the problem you mention above is better framed in that you are finding petty reasons to have them deleted, and not following procedure when doing so; procedure that is there for very valid reasons. --David Shankbone 12:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepLondon bus routes and their development are historically important, and as to how London developed as a city, influencing and reflecting living, work and leisure patterns.KTo288 00:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just would like to note that nobody has yet provided any coverage from significant sources as to why these are notable. Also, this AFD should stay open for 5 more days since none of the articles were tagged Corpx 02:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Articles like these are *exactly* why people love Wikipedia, and predicting that if people leave then articles will fall apart is the spooky "What if people stopped caring about Wikipedia" argument that is pretty tiresome, and fails the WP:CRYSTAL test. 90% of Wikipedia articles are typically kept up with by a handful of people; that doesn't mean other people won't join them at some point. Wikipedia isn't a popularity contest. --David Shankbone 04:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It was stated by the proposer that "I'm nominating along with this every single london bus route page most of which are included below" but that lists just 30 pages. There are over 300 individual London Bus Route articles and each should be properly tagged if they are to be deleted, not just an arbitary 10%. It would simply be nonsensical to merge them by company. London bus routes are not deregulated like the rest of the country but are controlled by TfL who award the contracts. Operating companies can change every few years whereas the route numbers change rarely. Page94 09:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -Changed as per above. Thenthornthing 10:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment why have you picked these particular London bus route pages for deletion? Page94 12:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Could the nominator clarify their reasoning for me? I fail to see in their reason for deleting at the top of the page a single policy that these articles breach. Which section of WP:NOT do these articles fail? "wikipedia does not need articles with , basiclly not alot of text"? Aren't these usually called "stubs"? Further, which speedy deletion criteria are you using as a reason to speedy this? Hammer Raccoon 11:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• They're failing WP:N in lacking "significant coverage" from independent sources Corpx 16:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keepAndycjp 13:44, 23 August 2007 (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.