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) 13:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 69[edit]

London Buses route 69 (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)

Non-notable bus-route, with neither a claim to notability nor any evidence of notability per WP:GNG.

I PRODded it, but the PROD was contested on the grounds of a pre-existing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport. However, the assessments in that discussion seem pretty shoddy. For example, this comment praises London Buses route 187, but I see no evidence there of notability.

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 disruptive procedural objections which have disrupted other similar AFDs? Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep for now, there is already ongoing discussion on this elsewhere, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#London bus route articles. These AfD's certianly don't help the process users are currently going through to determine which articles are notable and which aren't. Jeni ^(talk) 00:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no discussion there of individual bus routes, other than a few comments such as the wholly unjustified praise for London Buses route 187. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:00, 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) 04:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not every trivial thing that exists in a directory needs a stand alone article. See not a directory. Edison (talk) 05:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• delete or redirect. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources.--Crossmr (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Mkativerata. This one is basically an A7 candidate. Resolute 01:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Mkativerata. Orderinchaos 17:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or delete Nothing worth keeping here. I would have redirected already had I known this article existed. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable third party sources - name drops only. Karanacs (talk) 13:25, 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) 04:25, 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) 12:57, 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) 15:23, 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) 04:43, 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.