Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 1


 * 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The result of the debate was speedy keep - nomination withdrawn. Thryduulf 11:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

London Buses route 1
A list of bus routes in London may be enough, but wikipedia is not a bus timetable. Furthermore, I have also nominated the related articles for deletion, as Wikipedia doesnt need a article on every non-notable bus route in London. Withdrawing nomination see below for my comment a few days earlier. --Arnzy (whats up?)  05:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * London Buses route 2
 * London Buses route 3
 * London Buses route 4
 * London Buses route 5
 * London Buses route 6
 * London Buses route 7
 * London Buses route 8
 * London Buses route 9
 * London Buses route 9 (Heritage)
 * London Buses route 11
 * London Buses route 12
 * London Buses route 13
 * London Buses route 15
 * London Buses route 15 (Heritage)
 * London Buses route 16
 * London Buses route 25
 * London Buses route 30
 * London Buses route 34
 * London Buses route 43
 * London Buses route 47
 * London Buses route 54
 * London Buses route 96
 * London Buses route 122
 * London Buses route 199
 * London Buses route 208
 * London Buses route 360
 * London Buses route 372
 * London Buses route 474
 * London Buses route 484
 * London Buses route 492
 * London Buses route X26

That's about every London bus route article nominated. --Arnzy (whats up?)  14:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominator. --Arnzy (whats up?)  14:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I found London Buses route 474 just by chance, noticed it had a category of bus routes and didnt look any further. I've noticed a few in the list had been nominated before recently. Had I known about the history of some of the bus routes, then I would have thought twice about it. But still, some articles are riddled with POV, OR or look a bit like buscruft, and would definitely need a cleanup.  Therefore, I am going to be withdrawing the nomination for all articles, however, anyone may re-nominate some or part of the route articles that doesn't comply with WP:NOT. --Arnzy  (whats up?)  22:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The passion and care that's gone into these articles is commendable. It's with great reluctance, therefore, that I vote to delete and destroy the random buscruft.  Wikipedia may not be paper, but imagine an article like this on every bus route in every city and town in every country on God's green Earth.  Untenable. Vizjim 14:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)  Changing vote to weak keep as per the wise arguments of Humansdorpie below. Vizjim 16:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment There are a LOT of articles out there on WP like this. For example every stop on the Dallas Area Rapid Transit system (DART) has an article.  Same with the Washington Metro system.  I think it needs to be deleted, but, it'll be an interesting precedent.  No vote for now. Metros232 14:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Well, this looks a lot like buscruft. Yup, it does.  On the other hand, buried among the pictures of buses is some actual information of genuine merit - the histories of some of the bus routes dating back a fair time, when the routes have been extended and so on.  And of course some original research and some gross POV (disabled passengers are quite glad that routes have "succombed" [sic] to low-entry buses).  I will need to read each one in detail, it's probably a delete but for once this cruft has saving graces. Just zis Guy you know? 14:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep of course. I wouldn't spend time writing these - but then that's what makes Wikipedia great. Stuff is not useless. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per CrazyRussian, this isn't some encyclopedia, it's Wikipedia, things such as these articles make it what it is today. +Hexagon1 (talk) [[Image:Flag of Australia.svg|30px]] 15:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Super Hesitant, Reluctant Delete - Wow, an amazing amount of work went into these. It all reads like original research so it really does need to be dealt with in some fashion, but I would hate to see this work go to waste.  Maybe it could all be merged into one article and the opinion/unverified/OR portions trimmed out to comply with policy with relevant policies. BigDT 15:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable and handy! --Irishpunktom\talk 15:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - these bus routes have some history to them, or other significance. I'd vote delete on, say, London Buses route 325 or London Buses route 104 because there's no particular significance to these routes - they just happen to be very handy for me. -- Sam Pointon  United FC 15:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Riddled with POV and OR, as JzGuy points out, and just the teensiest bit crufty. However, in among the commentary are hard data that might actually be of use and cannot be easily incorporated in any other article. Some of these routes have been used for 50 or 60 years and must have carried tens of millions of passengers; others (such as the #15) have historical significance because of their use of Routemaster buses. I am reassured to see that some of the older articles have strong edit histories, which infers that they will continue to be edited and maintained by a number of different editors. Humansdorpie 15:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - the articles are of a decent size, and Wikipedia allows rather insignificant train stations, so why not bus routes?--Nydas 16:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP Also, I would just like to say, WE DID THIS ALREADY!!!  Articles have been kept and deleted for various different reasons. The articles on buses I create all have historical information on them, and that's why I believe, once again, that they should all be KEPT!!! --sonicKAI 16:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC) P.S. I didn't create 11, 43, and X26.--sonicKAI 16:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm... — incredibly well done articles, I must confess... but nothing I would look for in an encyclopædia. They shouldn't be deleted, but maybe rather moved to somewhere else. Maybe a new Wikiproject? What comes after London? Paris? New York? Leipzig? It's hard to draw a notability threshold here... I think it's too non-notable, but the articles are really well-done. Move 'em, I say. — N-true 16:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - of course. These could be a load of crappy stubs, but they are not. They are rich, interesting articles. They do need editing for POV but that could be said for many other articles and is no grounds for being deleted. Mrsteviec 17:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There should be seperate articles on different topics of interest. An encyclopedia is there to give information about these. There are articles about different train routes and vehicles. There are also articles on other buses so why not bus routes? In one word, Keep.Simply south 19:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep if for no other reason than these have already survived recent AFD nominations. 23skidoo 19:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all. This wasn't a very constructive nomination.  Unlike in some cities, numbered bus routes in London can last many decades and become part of the capital's history.  The articles are well written and the subject is encyclopedic. --Tony Sidaway 20:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Dangit, of all the non-encyclopedic material that's on here and been aloud to stay, you want to delete something that's actually useful? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 22:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- transitcruft, slippery slope issue. Not to say that it's not useful or accurate (I have no idea of either), but it doesn't belong here. Haikupoet 03:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Normally these bus route articles are deletable because they are so prone to change, but the London Bus system has been remarkably stable. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and add the missing routes! This is real information germane to the functioning of London as a city.BTLizard 11:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all. Some of these, like London Buses route 2, aren't just stubs, they've got historical and other information in there.  I could understand deleting a bunch of timetables, but these are not they. Vashti 14:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all what a waste of "not paper".  Grue   15:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. These are good articles. Mackensen (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep all I can't be certain, but some bus routes are likely to have historic or interesting sociological connotations, and I wouldnt like them removed. In any case, what next? Delete Jubilee Line? Hornplease 03:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all Some good history here as we all know wiki is not paper (Gnevin 15:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC))
 * Keep all as per Web kai2000. The nomination says "Wikipedia doesnt need a article on every non-notable bus route in London" &hellip; but these routes are notable (although some do not assert notability clearly enough in the opening para). Most of them are older than some tube lines, and they are as well known to generations of Londoners as the tube.  I am also very unhappy about the repeated re-nomination for deletion of these articles, which does not seem to me to be an appropriate use of the AfD process, since the nominator does not explain what has changed since previous discussions were concluded. I cannot see technical grounds for a "speedy keep", otherwise I would say "speedy". --User:BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 16:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to wikitravel. -- GWO
 * Transwiki to wikitravel. Vegaswikian 20:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just out of interest, why transwiki? These pages aren't timetables. Vashti 21:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep on the whole the articles seem to be pretty well written, with historical info and encyclopedic content. They're not "bus timetables". Yes, some of them could do with NPOV, but that's a case for cleanup, not deletion. The articles do us no harm. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 11:19, 19 May 2006 (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.