Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bexley Accessible Transport route 938


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Bexley Accessible Transport route 938

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable bus route. Just because it's the first and only bus route to be contracted to a community bus scheme does not make it notable. 's rationale for removing prod was "All London bus routes seem to be considered notable at WP." - they do not. Some of them have been discussed in reliable sources - take the 68, for example, a TimeOut writer wrote about it. Either way, both me and are in agreement that this is not a London Bus! Laun chba  ller  09:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Yes, it isn't literally "all", but we have articles not just for a few scattered individual London bus routes of great notability, but for the first 100 we have articles for 70% of them"  1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 20, 31, 33, 34 ,36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 49, 50, 51,52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 68, 73,  74, 75, 78, 81, ,82, 83, 86, 87 , 88, 89  93, 94, 96; We do not have articles for  5, 21, 32, 35, 40, 41, 45, 46, 47, 48, 56, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 76, 77, 79, 80, 85, 91, 92, 95, 97, 98, 99; 84 is missing from our master list . for the second 100, we have 43%; for the third 100, 38%; for the fourth 100, 12%; for the fifth 100, 10%,  I do not know the details of London geography, but I can see nothing truly extraordinary about almost all of the ones we do have. Perhaps someone can explain the basis of selection.  DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 84's omission is deliberate; it's not a London bus, it's a Hertfordshire bus. It would appear that WikiProject Transport is one of the naughtier WikiProjects; I personally would create a table in userspace noting the route number and the number of independent reliable sources.-- Laun  chba  ller  23:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * How is this argument not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? - The Bushranger One ping only 04:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Delete. Non-notable bus route. If WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS we need to turn a gimlet eye on whether or not they should be kept, but regardless of them, the encyclopedia is not improved by the retention of this article. List of Bexley Accessible Transport routes might be notable, but this is not. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Conversely, the encyclopedia is not improved by the deletion of this article, either.  In fact, the article has a pretty neutral effect on the encyclopedia in the overall scheme of things.  Skinsmoke (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Which falls under WP:NOHARM, I believe. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject's notability is questionable and the only reference used is self-published. If the article is to keep, it will require expansion and more diverse references. Meatsgains (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 13:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete; fails WP:GNG in it's current state. Bjelleklang -  talk 17:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.