Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 394

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. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 394

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

Random London bus route with no notability at all. Google brings up nothing to establish

notability, just a selection of timetables. This is an encyclopaedia, not a travel guide. Jeni ^(talk) 20:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete as nominator Jeni ^(talk) 20:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This route is not particularly notable, and more detailed information can be found at Transport for London's Route Map for route 394, plus TfL can produce timetables from a specific stop. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC) !vote changed - see below[reply]
I created the article because I felt this "random bus route" (and I agree it is one) is noteworthy for its operation by an unconventional bus company (HCT Group which operates as a charity) and illustrates the move by the Gordon Brown government to move provision of public services to the third sector. The company operates very few London bus routes, few enough to be worth listing, and I didn't want the list of them in HCT Group to be full of red links. I chose 153 and 394 because they had illustrations available on Commons. I do not intend to create any more articles about routes operated by this company, but I think London Buses route 153 and London Buses route 394 should stay Nankai (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Now look. Let's keep this in perspective. As you can see from the graphic at the bottom of this article, there are some dedicated editors who are producing articles on apparently every London bus route. I think that this is a meritorious project, and certainly at least as meritorious as having articles on video games, episodes of the Simpsons and so on. It seems to me that every London bus route, by virtue of being a bus route in this greatest of all British cities, is notable. This one too. I say that as one who has never set foot in London or Britain. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There aren't articles on every London bus route, and there never will be, because a significant number of them aren't notable, and this is one of them. Jeni ^(talk) 21:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I see red links intermixed amid the blue ones, but it's not clear to me that this is a question of notability or rather one of "not gotten around to just yet." I agree with a comment below that these need to be all kept or all deleted. I'd favor keeping.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: how can a bus route used by thousands of people in one of the most important cities of the world be non-notable? --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 01:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is no logical way to decide if one bus route is more 'notable' than another. If an encyclopedia is to be encyclopedic it should aim for as wide a coverage as possible. Once the principle of articles about bus routes is established, it seems perverse to object to additions to the class.--Brunnian (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question for creator Are you planning on creating a detailed history section for these two routes as we have seen on other routes (see for example London Buses route 1, London Buses route 2)? All of the routes I looked at (1-10) had a history section of at least 2 paragraphs. As the article stands, I do not think it would be worth keeping. If this section could be added, I would be happy to change my !vote. Although I live in South London, I do not know this route, and do not think I could provide this section. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given the enormous amount of created stubs, this should be a policy-level decision: keep all or kill all. Yes, most are absolutely non-notable, and so is this one, but singling out two non-notable stub out of hundreds makes no sense.
NVO (talk) 11:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with the toher notabilty and encyolpedic reasons what is special about this line that jsutify a article?--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As there is now the beginnings of a history section, I am happy that this meets the basic requirements that I was looking for in a stub article, so I am changing my !vote accordingly. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, are there any sources apart from corporate and fan/hate sites? There are books on London buses' history, as a system, with some insight into individual historic routes but they don't venture into three-digit numbers, do they?

NVO (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

As these are relatively new routes (the 394 is only about 6 years old), there would be little hope of finding mention of them in books at the moment. There may well be some though, and if these articles survive AfD, I'll try to look up at libraries some next week when I get a chance to - as for many of us, life is hectic for me at times! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now: I say give them a chance to make the article into something. If this suspension of deletion results in nothing worth saving, then I will propose we disclose the truth, admit its a flawed subject, and correct the defect by sending it to meet its maker without any doubt or plea for insanity. --Triadian (talk) 05:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now unless reliable third party sources come up. Has anyone else noticed that almost every other keep vote was because there are other bus route articles that exist or because we have articles on Manhattan subways? However, per
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS we have to judge this article on its own merits. I did a Google search and found nothing besides timetables, which proves that the route exists but not that it is notable. Google News turns up absolutely nothing. I would love this article to stay too and would gladly change my vote if I was overlooking something, but liking something isn't a reason to keep, sorry. Tavix | Talk 09:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Bus routes get published in newspapers don't they? For major cities I'm certain they do. It has coverage. And all bus routes are notable, for the same reasons mentioned in other AFD for them. Why not just nominate all of them at once so we don't all have to make the same comments everywhere. You show the historical development of a city, by listing things like his bus routes. Dream Focus 03:52, 12 October 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.