Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essex bus route 55


 * 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) 19:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Essex bus route 55

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Another seemingly non notable bus route, which only actually ran for a little over 3 months. jenuk1985 (talk) 13:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge This source:  seems to demonstrate that something about this bus route is notable.  I don't think we should delete it but I think we should (a) pare down the non-referencable or non-notable material, and merge into something more relevant.  What page exactly to merge into?  I don't know.  Cazort (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.   --  fr33k  man   -s-  15:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   --  fr33k  man   -s-  15:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note the AfD template had been removed from the article. I've restored it. No comment on the article itself. StarM  16:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment While the editors who have been trying to improve the article since the AfD was started should be commended for their efforts, I'm struggling to see any way the article could be improved to save it. At the end of the day it is a bus route that was started in competition with a rivals route (which doesn't a page itself), and them 3 months later it failed. I don't like to quote guidelines too often, but in relation to the merge comment above, WP:N provides a useful statement:
 * "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage." jenuk1985 (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Would need more than one external source to confirm it is notable. Frozenevolution (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of bus routes in Essex, verifiability but the only secondary coverage I can find is one source, which is not enough for notability. — Snigbrook 19:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The right place for information on bus routes is on the operator's or Passenger Transport Executive' website. Since bus deregulation, bus routes are liable to change at frequent intervals.  Each change makes the articel obsolete.  This makes the articles essentially unmaintainable, unless some one is watching the operator's site to pick up changes and will NEVER go away.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's true of most articles, particularly subjects such as football, music, celebrities and anything related to a future event. I don't know what the situation is like with bus routes in Essex, but until recently most of the bus routes in the area around where I live had been the same for several years, other than changes of operator (usually as a result of takeovers) and new vehicles replacing old ones.  More frequent changes, such as fare increases and minor timetable changes would not be relevant to the article.  They are not unmaintainable, it just depends if the articles are maintained or not (maintenance templates and wikiprojects can be useful for this). — Snigbrook  21:10, 19 February 2009 (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.