Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 153


 * 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    Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

London Buses route 153

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Another random London bus route with no notability at all. Again, Google brings up nothing to establish notability, just a selection of timetables. This is an encyclopaedia, not a travel guide. Jeni ( talk ) 20:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominator Jeni  ( talk ) 20:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete London Transport do a better job of presenting this information (TfL Route 153 map, as well as the ability to get a timetable from a specific stop on the route). This route is not particularly noteworthy. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 20:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Changing !vote - see below
 * I created the article because I felt this "random bus route" (and I agree it is one) is noteworthy for its operation by an unconventional bus company (HCT Group which operates as a charity) and illustrates the move by the Gordon Brown government to move provision of public services to the third sector. The company operates very few London bus routes, few enough to be worth listing, and I didn't want the list of them in HCT Group to be full of red links. I chose 153 and 394 because they had illustrations available on Commons. I do not intend to create any more articles about routes operated by this company, but I think London Buses route 153 and London Buses route 394 should stay Nankai (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep. We have articles on every subway line in Manhattan. I see no harm whatsoever with this article and it is clearly a notable transportation route in London. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have articles for every bus route in Manhattan? That is a more appropriate comparison. We have articles for every underground line, and that works just fine. Do you have any sources to prove the notability of this particular route? I'm sure you wouldn't make a comment like "clearly a notable transportation route" without having something to back it up. Jeni  ( talk ) 21:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per JohnnyB256. A London bus line is cleary notable in the original meaning of the word: it is something thousands of people a day deal with. For sure much more notable than thousands of WP article subjects. I see nothing wrong in keeping this article. -- Cycl o pia -  talk  23:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 01:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep We seem to have much more detailed coverage of London bus routes than of those in NYC -- see for NYC List of bus routes in Manhattan & []  --I am not sure of the reason for the  different treatment. The London articles list ever stop. The NYC ones do not. Perhaps our NYC chapter needs to get to work on this.    DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - there is no logical way to decide if one bus route is more 'notable' than another. If an encyclopedia is to be encyclopedic it should aim for as wide a coverage as possible.  Once the principle of articles about bus routes is established, it seems perverse to object to additions to the class.--Brunnian (talk) 02:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Question for creator Are you planning on creating a history section for these two routes as we have seen on other routes (see for example London Buses route 1, London Buses route 2)? All of the routes I looked at (1-10) had a history section of at least 2 paragraphs. As the article stands, I do not think it would be worth keeping. If this section could be added, I would be happy to change my !vote. Although I live in South London, I do not know this route, and do not think I could provide this section. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 07:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Mostly on the notabilty of the article and how it is encolpediceadit, might see the point if it was famous bus route or a something that could justify it notabilty.-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 23:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Like with NYC, any bus route in a major city like London is notable and it would be a logistical nightmare to analyze and discuss every one of them to ponder if any of them aren't. --Oakshade (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As there is now the beginnings of a history section, I am happy that this meets the basic requirements that I was looking for in a stub article, so I am changing my !vote accordingly. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 11:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete relevant info can be merged to parent article; I don't think a single bus route, even for a busy city, meets our inclusion criteria (not a directory, etc.) Martin Raybourne (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: A random bus route article rightly deserves a random vote, so I pick keep. Haha, but really, per above. --Triadian (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for now unless reliable third party sources come up. Has anyone else noticed that almost every other keep vote was because there are other bus route articles that exist or because we have articles on Manhattan subways? However, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS we have to judge this article on its own merits. I did a Google search and found nothing besides timetables, which proves that the route exists but not that it is notable. Google News turns up absolutely nothing. I would love this article to stay too and would gladly change my vote if I was overlooking something, but liking something isn't a reason to keep, sorry. Tavix | Talk  08:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Puzzled, of Lincolnshire, writes: Surely there are other definitions of "notable" than "it's all over google"?--Brunnian (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The notability guidelines do not show that it is notable only if there are references found via Google. As I have already mentioned, this (as a stub article) is sufficient from what I can see - a start to the history section has been made, and I will be doing some research next week to find more information. Tavik, I know that you weren't talking about me, as I haven't mentioned other articles existing as an argument for keeping the article. However, just because you can't find mention via google of a relatively new route does not mean sources are not available. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 19:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I ama bit confussed it seems that the reason for keeping is because it ais a london bus route, whoever i live in scotland and i could add all the glasgow bus rotues with sources etc but does that make it notable? Why is london bus notable? However upon reviewing more about these bus i can see these might be notable but will peopel then create article for ever bus route in london?-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 19:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can add Glasgow bus routes, please do, and I am not kidding. A bus route in a major city is used by thousands of people every day, which makes it much more notable than most subjects in WP. -- Cycl o pia -  talk  19:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * An article on Glasgow bus routes would be greatly useful to visitors to that city.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep If American cities have their bus routes on Wikipedia, why shouldn't other nations? Its notable because so many people use them, public transport shaping the city's development, and showing its decay as routes are abandoned as factories are closed and whatnot.  Good for historical overview of an area I believe.   D r e a m Focus  03:50, 12 October 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.