Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 123

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 redirect to List of bus routes in London. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 123 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Restored and reverted several times for lack of notability, only recently restored leading to an edit war between multiple users (and the editor who restored it most recently even recommended bringing to AfD to resolve the dispute). Article is still not notable even with added content, and still lacks significant sourcing that is non-routine (such as route changes and contract tendering). Ajf773 (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redirect per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. There is a distinct lack of sources to indicate independent notability, fails WP:GNG. The redirect to the list article works fine.Polyamorph (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of bus routes in London. As I have said at previous London bus route AfDs, any route that doesn't have any particular claim to fame or infamy (e.g. well-publicised and covered opposition to its introduction or a change in its routing, notable events during its run) should be redirected. I stand by that rationale. firefly ( t · c ) 11:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of bus routes in London, as was previously done. Fails WP:GNG, and as per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Pinging @Thryduulf:, @AlgaeGraphix:, and @11Expo: who participated in a recent London bus route AfD. Thank you for nominating for deletion rather than redirecting again, @Ajf773:. NemesisAT (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or redirect. I've not looked (and don't currently have time to look) in detail at the article but as with every single other article about a bus route in London* that verifiably exists or existed there is never a justification for deletion. If the route is notable (some are, some aren't) then it should have an article. If it isn't then it should be a redirect to wherever the most content about it is, which will usually be the list of of London bus routes articles - when some members are a set are notable, all members of the set are plausible search terms. (*This also applies to places outside London where a similar list exists). Thryduulf (talk) 10:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Thryduulf (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

• Keep It's easy to find more coverage such as this account of its special service on its 50th anniversary. Our policy WP:ATD therefore applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 12:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is a route with a sixty year long history, dating back to the withdrawal of trolleybuses. That makes it notable IMO. It has developed, with night buses being added to the route. I completely disagree that a route change is "routine", it certainly isn't routine to people who rely on public transport! The article has been improved since being nominated for deletion and should now be kept. NemesisAT (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nomination, and specifically as per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Wikipedia is not a bus timetable service. The edit warring and adjacent tomfoolery also suggests we've entered the realm of the unnecessary. doktorb _words^deeds 22:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There are no timetables in this article. In what way is it acting as a "bus timetable service"? NemesisAT (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Additionally, buses and their routes are anything but "unnecessary" to those that use and rely on them. What is "unnecessary" to you may be vital to others and is not grounds for deleting an article. NemesisAT (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a charleston we've danced before. Bus routes almost always fall foul of Wikipedia policies because they are trivial, because they are routine and/or because they're used to hide what they really are: an attempt at smuggling an enthusiast's blog into an encyclopedia. We had it with the TV nerds who wanted to keep channel guides on here. Someone says above "it's not routine to people who rely on public transport" which gives the game away. If we allow a bus route on Wiki, then we have to include where the route goes, and how long (in miles and time) and on it goes until we get another route, and another. It slowly and unofficially grows its real purpose. So maybe there was not, strictly speaking, a timetable on this article. But as good as an end-to-end route description is, and we all know why doktorb _words^deeds 23:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Bus routes are not "trivial". This article does not cite any enthusiast's blog. I do not write blog posts. What exactly is the problem with describing where a bus goes, similarily to where a railway line goes? As for miles and time, that ins't included in this article. Your comments give me the impression you simply don't like bus information being documented on Wikipedia, and that you wish to delete this article because of what it may turn in to one day, rather than what it is now. NemesisAT (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) That sounds a lot like "I dislike the type of content that somebody might potentially add to this article in the future." rather than a reason why the current content is not encyclopaedic. It also fails to address why the page, if it isn't encyclopaedic as a stand-alone article, would be deleted rather than redirected to the list. Thryduulf (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of London bus routes, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTROUTINE. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree that the route changes or the introduction of night services is routine. From reading WP:NOROUTINE, it seems there isn't a clear definition. I'm also not sure how this falls foul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. NemesisAT (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Came here from ANI, in case anyone's wondering. There's not enough independent coverage of this route for it to qualify for a stand-alone article. (In terms of the canvassing thing, I think it's obviously inappropriate per WP:VOTESTACK's bit here: In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an RFC, AFD or CFD), it is similarly inappropriate to send a disproportionate number of notifications specifically to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate. but there's also a high likelihood these users would have stumbled upon this article in the first place, so I'm really not that fussed.) SportingFlyer T·C 10:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Well this isn't a reconsideration of a previous debate, and the notifications were sent to everybody who expressed any viewpoint who wasn't already aware so I'm not sure how that's relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those any viewpoints being Keep, Don't Delete, Keep, and Keep. Polyamorph (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because those are the only ones expressed in the AfD other than the nominator, who as the nominator here was obviously already aware. It was literally impossible to notify anybody expressing a different view because they don't exist. Thryduulf (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly the problem. Sorry to take this down a tangent. SportingFlyer T·C 18:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the mentions I made were in line with the guidelines but others disagree. I can see how it can be argued either way. That being said it looks like this AfD will go your way so I don't see much point in discussing this further. NemesisAT (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you NemesisAT. There was never any suggestion it was intentional. Polyamorph (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect (came from the ANI) I see no evidence that this particular route is independently notable enough for a stand-alone article as above. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect with a bit of merge (came from the ANI too). The topic fails WP:GNG. No objection to merging nor to soft deletion by redirecting without any hard deletion involved. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would also be happy with some merging to the target, since there is some sourced content, and I am not against the soft redirect. Polyamorph (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2021 (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.