Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No. 51 Line

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. Shimeru 16:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. 51 Line

No. 51 Line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I don't believe a bus route is inherently notable. Every city has dozens if not hundreds. Delete

• You may also want to look at the
  exolon 23:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Can you make a mass deletion nomination for all that? 132.205.44.134 00:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Epbr123 00:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hornandsoccer^Talk 01:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It depends on how many people take the line. If there are over a million trips per year on the line that would make it important to quite a few people. The article could be easily expanded to include a list of notable attractions along the route, with corresponding links back to No. 51 Line. One could therefore become a vitual passenger tourist. This has been quite succesful for several city pages.--Ng.j 06:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Only sources cited are from the
  EALacey 11:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Bus routes, phone booths, mail boxes and lamp posts are not inherently notable. If one such whether real or fictional had multiple independent reliable sources with non-trivial coverage about it exploring its history, its significance, and its special features, then it might satisfy
  WP:AI. This one does not. It is however a very well written article giving the history of the route and what one might see while riding on it, and is far more than a mere stub. Edison 14:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I'm not familiar with the area so I could be wrong but I believe this was a
  streetcar line prior to becoming a bus route. Most rail lines have been deemed worthy of an article. I think if the history of the route is included, it is a worthy article. --Polaron | Talk 23:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete why is Baltimore the primary topic of #51? I would think TORONTO would be a much better city to base a #51 bus line on. 132.205.44.134 23:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a reason to disambiguate the article, not delete it. --Polaron | Talk 23:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Then shouldn't your vote be to move the article to Baltimore No. 51 Line? 132.205.44.134 00:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep and disambiguate, though I'd prefer that it be merged into a list like SEPTA City Transit Division surface routes or list of bus routes in Manhattan. It was never a streetcar line, but it has a decent history, having been started in 1948. --NE2 12:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admittedly "tooting my own horn", I believe
    this is how a good article about a bus route should look. --NE2 10:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Merge or Listify As mentioned, this information would make more sense as either a list of as a section of an article. Even from the point of clarity, the information is easier to visualize when groups.DGG 23:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Here are the rest of the lines. They were prodded by 132.205.44.134 with reason "Maryland is not the center of the world." Contested by 172.163.18.175 with reason "removed prod; reason is POV. Take to AfD."

No. 1 Line • No. 2 Line • No. 3 Line • No. 4 Line • No. 5 Line • No. 6 Line • No. 7 Line • No. 8 Line • No. 9 Line • No. 10 Line • No. 11 Line • No. 12 Line • No. 13 Line • No. 14 Line • No. 15 Line • No. 16 Line • No. 17 Line • No. 18 Line • No. 19 Line • No. 20 Line • No. 21 Line • No. 22 Line • No. 23 Line • No. 24 Line • No. 26 Line • No. 27 Line • No. 29 Line • No. 30 Line • No. 33 Line • No. 35 Line • No. 36 Line • No. 40 Line • No. 43 Line • No. 44 Line • No. 50 Line • No. 55 Line • No. 50 Line • No. 51 Line • No. 55 Line • No. 61 Line • No. 64 Line • No. 68 Line • No. 77 Line • No. 91 Line • No. 97 Line • No. 98 Line • No. M-1 Line • No. M-2 Line • No. M-3 Line • No. M-6 Line • No. M-8 Line • No. M-9 Line • No. M-10 Line • No. M-12 line • No. M-15 line • No. M-16 Line • No. M-17 Line

This is not a bundle nomination yet. If there is a wish to make it a bundle nomination, we could start over or make everyone voice their opinions on all of them again. –Pomte 13:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the wrong site for this. I would love to see the whole World Wide Web & all human endeavors integrated in Wiki, but we don't have the power to tax the planet, so we don't have the power to be a site for Maryland public transportation. Ventifax 23:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Whether Maryland is the centre of the universe or not is not of great relevance here, but it is not valid grounds for deletion. Whether the subject is worthy of a wiki article or not depends not on its importance, but
  WP:A, as none of the sources are independent of the subject, but are from the operator. Ohconfucius 02:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete
  WP:NOT indiscriminant collection of information / not a travelogue. 70.55.201.210 03:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC) — 70.55.201.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
  ]
• Keep pending a bundled renomination or, more preferably, discussion at a WikiProject or article talk page. I do not find any argument based in the inherent notability or non-notability of objects or events to be convincing. Some routes may be notable; others may not be. I believe the best course of action to be the following: investigate the issue, discuss it on some talk page, and come to a consensus decision: merge/listify all, keep some/delete some, redirect all, keep all, or delete all. -- Black Falcon 04:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Talk:Maryland Transit Administration would be appropriate for such discussion, though it is not particularly active. See Talk:No. 51 Line and Talk:No. 4 Line (MTA) for the creator's comments. –Pomte 06:59, 5 April 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.