Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 153 (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

London Buses route 153
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Do bus routes really need a separate article? When I added bus routes to an article, it was wiped off citing notability issues, and another time saying that Wikipedia is NOT a directory. An article, or a list will all bus routes with destinations, routes, a rollover map maybe, might be handy, but individual article PER route sounds silly to me. Please by all means, let me know your opinion. Regards, -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete—I'm inclined to agree with the nominator. There's nothing specific to this article to establish notability for this route. The list of bus routes in London covers the pertinent information from this article already. If a notes column were added to the table on that list, the two historical facts (original contract for service, renewal of that contract) could be added to that page as well. In the meantime, a footnote for that information could be appended to the service provider name in the table. On the whole, this article though does not satisfy WP:GNG, so delete, or redirect it back to the list.  Imzadi 1979   →   16:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete there are articles for series of bus routes but individual bus routes must meet WP:GNG which this does not. LibStar (talk) 04:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete in the last AfD, I originally went for 'delete' then changed this to 'keep' when a source and brief mention of the route's history was added. However, nothing further has been added, and I could not find anything at reliable independent sources which would allow this article to be expanded beyond what currently exists. As such, I feel that this is one of the London bus routes for which there is no justification in having an article. Of course, if someone can find a reliable independent source (on- or offline) and expands the history section, then I might change to 'keep', but I couldn't find anything suitable.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 10:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be happy with Redirect to Buses in London instead of deleting (although a delete before redirect would be required)  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 23:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment After reading Steve's comment, I want to add a point. Maybe such routes, which may have a tad bit notability as compared to others, can be listed in a single article about notable routes, PROVIDED that notability is established thru reliable sources. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the list or delete. Unlike many London routes, the sources for this aren't enough to establish notability under WP:GNG. Searches in various source, both on and off the net, gave nothing more in-depth than a 50-word announcement about a tender win and this one-sentence mention. Redirecting is the standard practise for these, as evidenced by Category:Redirects from London bus routes. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Buses in London or Delete. The paragraph about the history of HCT Group is already available on HCT Group anyway. --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - the historical connection of this route warrants an article of its own. Anti Bullying Warrior (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2011 (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.