Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 109


 * 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 No consensus, possibly bordering on keep. There are multiple assertions that various offline works, including several explicitly mentioned, contain sources that demonstrate notability, but which have not been added to the article yet as collating them is hard work that would be wasted if the article is deleted. Given this has been open well over a month I think it's clear that continuing to argue will not change any minds, so I'm closing this as "no consensus" and encourage those wanting to keep this article to improve it and those wanting to delete it to give them sufficient time to do that before considering another nomination. I would also suggest a moratorium on the nomination of other bus route articles to allow time for those who want to work on them to do so, but I realise that this can be no more than a suggestion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

London Buses route 109

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Very much a non-notable bus route. Nordic  Nightfury  15:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Nightfury  15:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Nightfury  15:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: Its one of Croydon's oldest bus routes. I've seen plenty of books available with this route included in it, but haven't bought them myself and right now I don't have the time to dig through my book collection as Im too busy with college. Surely or  may have some books or web sources mentioning this route. Another fact that makes it notable is that it was the first route in London that was allocated with the next generation Enviro400 MMC. Class455 (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep A quick browse shows that the route goes back at least 64 years to 1952 when the notorious Derek Bentley used it. The article just needs more work to develop this long history. Andrew D. (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And I find some good coverage in the Routemaster Omnibus. This explains the history of the route, which was formed from tram routes 16 and 18 in 1951, and provides some good colour – one of the 109s ended up in service at Kitty Hawk and Niagara Falls. Andrew D. (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What coverage is actually in there? Last time you found 'good coverage' on a bus route, it turned out to simply be a picture of a bus on that route Forgive me that based on previous experience of your assertions, I don't want to take your word that there is 'good coverage' Jeni  ( talk ) 21:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Jeni! Never judge the depth of coverage in sources provided by the Colonel just from the limited view you can see online. Always assume he has the physical book, which might have much more detailed coverage that you can see by any convenience link to google books. I recall one time back in 2010 when the Colonel and I attended a London meetup with Sue Gardener, to see what could be done about deletionists. Then as now bus routes were a common target – the Colonel had brought a whole stack of books on buses from his private library, so all could see the detailed coverage that London bus routes receive. Huh, thinking back to 2010, I remember in those days you were one of the best defenders of these articles. And not just the articles, you were also one of the most effective defenders of ARS heroes like Ikip when they used to get witch hunted on ANI. Maybe we didn't show our appreciation enough at the time, but some of us in the ARS used to call you our Penelope Pitstop due to your similar charm and as you both liked to adorn yourselves with pink. Heart breaking to find something seems to have turned you again buses, and made you determined to destroy what you once sought to protect and preserve. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This seems to be evidence of a cabal organised offline. Also more personal attack than relevant to the issue in hand.Charles (talk) 11:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Two editors attending a Wikimedia meetup is hardly evidence of a "cabal". WP:AGF. jcc (tea and biscuits) 12:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There are more than two of us and the cabal is open to even more members. Come along to the next meeting.  You can even go there by bus and the London Transport Museum is nearby. Andrew D. (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited from incidents that happened to be on a route, a criminal using a bus, the eventual fate of a bus. Only secondary coverage specifically about the route matters.Charles (talk) 09:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Oh dear, the serial 'keepers' are here! There is absolutely nothing noteworthy about this route. My right shoe has more notability than this route. Jeni  ( talk ) 21:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Oh dear, the serial deleter is here! ;)" You don't understand that more sources are available out there that can establish notability. We also need to come to a uniform consensus across the board about individual bus routes rather than just nominating them for deletion. Either we work together and improve the articles by finding sources or hinder the project by deleting them all.After all, Wikipedia is a collaborative project.  Class455 (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Consensus is that each subject (route) has to stand or fall on its own secondary coverage. See WP:NOTINHERITED.Charles (talk) 09:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - this is one of the few routes that is worthy of inclusion, has a history dating back many years. Support User Andrew Davidson's rationale Ajf773 (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:GNG. Assertions that there must be significant secondary sources out there somewhere can be made for pretty much any subject. When somebody does the research and actually finds them they can recreate the article, nicely written as prose and full of encycyclodic interest. If it is kept now it will just sit there for years in much its present state, an embarrassment to Wikipedia.Charles (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. This route was created in 1951 and there is substantive history (see this revision pre-pruning), and generally speaking bus routes are significant, permanent parts of cities, which tend to be consistent and not often changed. London bus routes are well discussed in a variety of books; and normally individual bus routes are discussed in local papers etc. when there are major changes as can be seen in the revision of the article I have linked to. There is a small trickle of bus routes nominated for deletion every-so-often; the main argument of those voting delete are similar every time, thus there should be a large scale deletion nomination articles of such bus articles where there is actually significant community input as opposed to the same editors popping up every time. It is highly hypocritical of Jeni to state that the serial "keepers" are here- since the end of February 2016 she has commented on the deletion of 57 bus routes and voted to delete 56 of them- so really, don't call the kettle black, it's not a good look. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What was pruned did not have any sources!Charles (talk) 11:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that, Charles, hence why it is not the current revision. However, the editor who added the text must have got the information from somewhere, hence posting that diff on this AfD is relevant to show that the bus route in question has got substantive history. jcc (tea and biscuits) 12:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep A venerable bus route with a storied history. Examing the coverage in sources mentioned above and in the article, WP:GNG is easilly met. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Prove it.Charles (talk) 11:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - non notable bus route, fails gng. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it is easy to find sources; one simply has to look. I browsed for a few seconds and found another one – The Colours of London Buses. Andrew D. (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That is a passing mention which does not establish notability.Charles (talk) 10:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to List of bus routes in London I do not see the significant coverage required and neither any claim of significance. Most cities do not have individual bus routes and London is no different. For a bus route to be notable, there needs to be significant coverage about the route explaining why it is notable or if it has had any notable effects on history and culture of the region. I do not see that here. Also, notability cannot be inherited from some events/descriptions which are passing mentions or at best tangentially related to the bus route (such as this). Unless someone out there actually writes about it and we have secondary coverage, this article should be redirected. (Note: I prefer a redirect instead of a delete here because the article has existed for a long time. I would also like to preserve the history. In case someone finds significant coverage in secondary sources, it can be restored. But the article as of now and the sources at this AfD are not good enough). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  → Call me  Razr   Nation  13:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - If the article is to be kept, it needs to be restored to the pre-pruned version which then needs to be properly sourced. --Schlosser67 (talk) 10:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * DElete all or none -- We need consistency. Most London bus routes numbered below 200 have articles.  We have in the past deleted great swathes of bus route articles, but I think we left these London ones as having significant duration and stability.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What does the numbering system have to do with whether the subject meets WP:GNG?Charles (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: _all_ London bus routes (indeed any bus route world-wide which has a history) is notable in and of itself. WP isn't an index of what is now but also of what has been, and the route articles show what has happened to them over time. The simple list of current routes provides zero information over what Google or the route operators provide. This is an encyclopaedia, it should behave like it. --AlisonW (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Except this bus route isn't notable, Never was and never will be, Exactly we're an encyclopedia and we should act like one- Not host every single non notable article. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's panto time ... "Oh no it isn't" :) Andrew D. (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh yes it is – Davey 2010 Talk 23:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, for consistency we've deleted others also and there's simply nothing amounting to genuine substance for its own article; with this said, it's best simply part of a list. SwisterTwister   talk  23:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, consistency indicates that we should keep the article as with other London bus routes – see category:Bus routes in London, which is well-populated with numerous other pages. London bus routes are typically historic, notable, covered by Wikipedia and kept at AfD. Andrew D. (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * They are more often deleted.Charles (talk) 10:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Each article should be assessed on its own merits as per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Ajf773 (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no consistency; they can swing either way a lot of the time depending on who takes part. There is not even a guideline, which I find to be a shame, as consistency is needed. jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails GNG spectacularly. Article currently has 4 references, one to Go-ahead London (not independant of the article subject and not useable for claims of notability), two from Transport for London (not independant of the article subject and not useable for claims of notability) and one from a highly specialised book about Bus colours in the 1970's where it rates a small mention as part of a much larger subject. In no way does this fulfil the GNG's criteria of "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The article has not kept up with the discussion above in which additional substantial sources such as the Routemaster Omnibus have been identified. I am waiting for this discussion to be closed before improving the actual article because it is obviously wasteful to do such work while it is threatened by deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 13:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Unless 'Routemaster Omnibus' is an entire book about Route 109 (which it isnt, it is about the Bus) it still fails GNG as it does not indicate significant coverage. Secondly an AFD is weighed on the article as it is written, not on hypothetical articles as yet unwritten. If you have better sources include them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's nonsense. Most of the articles on Wikipedia don't have books written about them.  Notability is just a guideline and it suggests significant coverage which "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."  We have plenty of such material for this route and so we're good.  As for AFD, we don't require immediate improvement as, per WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page".  See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew D. (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Whats nonsense is you have yet to actually present some sources that demonstrate notability per WP:GNG despite being asked more than once now. Could you now please do so or refrain from badgering. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have presented multiple sources which satisfy WP:SIGCOV. "Only in death" does not seem to have ever written an article on Wikipedia while I have created hundreds myself.  From this experience, I have a good understanding of what's required and this topic has got what it takes.  It is far from perfect right now but it is our policy that it doesn't need to be.  It's not a high priority like BLP or medical topics and so it will just have to wait its turn. Andrew D. (talk) 10:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Personally I would keep    articles on all bus routes, but there is not consensus for that view. But on the information presented, this particular one is notable.  DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And what evidence would that be? Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is typical of AfDs on London bus routes that we are assured that there are lots of secondary sources out there, but nothing significant is ever actually produced.Charles (talk) 09:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources have already been produced. And here's another – Motor Omnibus Routes in London.  As its title indicates, this is specifically about such topics.  It's a multi-volume work and the volume I'm looking at right now is volume 7A – 1 December 1924 to 31 December, 1926.  Even though it only covers two years, it's a book of 184 pages.  And it includes the route in question during those years.  Combing through such works to add citations is hard work and nobody is paying us to do this.  Right now there are more important priorities such as the BBC 100 Women event or London parks or missing towns in Greece and so on.  And that's just on Wikipedia; never mind commitments of family, friends, work, &c.  It is quite clear that AFD is not cleanup – we are not here as an article improvement service for deletionists who do nothing to help.  It is also clear that there's no deadline and that pages might be imperfect in the meantime.  There's not a significant problem here that needs fixing right now.  That's all. Andrew D. (talk) 09:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Its a passing mention in what is effectively a trivia directory listing bus routes where the subject is not the focus of the book and is side by side with hundreds of other bus routes. Still fails GNG. Please provide a source that indicates the topic of Route 109 has received significant coverage as per the GNG's requirements. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a passing mention; it's the focus of the work. No, it's not a directory; it's a work of historical research written long after the time it covers.  No, it's not trivial and there are museums, societies and many publications about this field.  We have independent reliable sources for the topic and that's what the WP:GNG advises.  We're good. Andrew D. (talk) 10:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A single route is obviously not the focus of a multi-volume work on numerous bus routes. Who published Motor Omnibus Routes in London? Is it self-published? Does it have a bibliography of sources or is it just one enthusiasts unverifiable ramblings?Charles (talk) 10:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - Can this discussion be closed now? It's been dragging on and dragging on for a month now and no clear consensus has been reached yet!! Class455 (talk) 11:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I expect two consensuses will come along any moment. Thincat (talk) 08:38, 15 December 2016 (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.