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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 406 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non notable bus route. Some sources are a bit dubious, with original research within article. Nordic Nightfury 12:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 12:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 12:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing notable about this route at all, all that has ever happened to it is route and frequency changes. Jeni ^(talk 14:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a historic route – nearly a century old – and there's a detailed history of it in sources such as The Motor Bus in London Country. The article seems quite reasonable as it is and further improvement should be done by ordinary editing rather than deletion per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Once again, agreeing with Andrew Davidson There are a number of sources here that can establish notability. Class455 (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PRODUCT, WP:GNG. Goods and services should be covered at the providers' pages. Not notable in itself. Take out the self-published sources and there is insufficient secondary coverage to meet WP:GNG. Charles (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't say this about all bus routes, but a lot of the London bus routes have been around for almost a century or so and can be considered almost as notable as rail routes. I would say this qualifies as notable given the age and sourcing. Blythwood (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Blythwood, this is a particularly venerable and noteable bus route. Nothing gained by destroying the article. Sorry to repeat my argument against the WP:PRODUCT attack, but a bus route is not just a "product" but among other things an element of public infrastructure. It would be as senseless to delete a bus route for being a product as it would be to destroy or merge a motorway article just beacause it happened to be toll road. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Motorways are major engineering structures which are of course notable. Bus routes are little more than lines on a map that often change over time. There is no reason for every run-of-the-mill route to need an article. WP:NOTTRAVEL has a bearing on this.Charles (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non notable bus route, A mention on List of London bus routes would be more than sufficent, Anyway fails GNG, –Davey2010^Talk 20:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Bus routes are significant, permanent parts of cities- this particular bus route is fast approaching its 100th anniversary. London bus routes are well discussed in a variety of books; and normally individual bus routes are discussed in local papers etc. when there are major changes. If the bus route was more recently created I might disagree, but this route has, as I have said, been around since 1920, and should not be subject to the small trickle of bus routes nominated for deletion every-so-often; the main argument of those voting delete are similar every time, thus there should be a large scale deletion nomination articles of such bus articles where there is actually significant community input as opposed to the same editors popping up every time. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:22, 4 November 2016 (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.