Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 187


 * 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 13:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

London Buses route 187

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Yet another non-notable London bus-route, with neither a claim to notability nor any evidence of notability per WP:GNG. It os already included in List of bus routes in London, so there is no need for a merger.

I PRODded it, but the PROD was contested on the grounds of a pre-existing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport. However, there is no discussion there of individual bus routes, other than a few comments such as this wholly unjustified praise for this London Buses route 187, an article which offers no evidence at all of the route's notability. One editor is insisting that these articles should be redirected rather than deleted, but 187 is praised as an example of a redirect which was converted back to an article. Rather than have this sort of non-notable material resurrected, a consensus here to delete will requires proper scrutiny of notability before it is overturned.

The editor who removed this PROD also contested a series of PRODs for West Midlands bus routes for which there was no evidence of notability, such as this one this. If WikiProjects don't follow accepted standards of notability, and editors block the use of lightweight deletion mechanisms such as PROD, then inevitably articles gets brought to AFD which should be deleted with less effort from the community.

If editors want to keep this article, please can can we have some actual evidence of notability per WP:GNG rather than the repeated cycle of procedural objections which have disrupted other similar AFDs? Thank you. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC) I have made no comments regarding the notability of this route nor am I attempting to make any. Please, and I say this in the politest way possible, shut up. Jeni ( talk ) 02:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  --  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  --  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep for now, there is already ongoing discussion on this elsewhere, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport. These AfD's certianly don't help the process users are currently going through to determine which articles are notable and which aren't. Jeni  ( talk ) 01:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, do please read the nomination before commenting. This article is one of the few which has already been discussed at the link you provide ... and it was praised as a [particularly good example of a bus route article.
 * Do you have any evidence that this bus route meets WP:GNG. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As I keep saying, I do read your nominations, but generally fall asleep. You can't prohibit me from expressing my opinion though. Jeni  ( talk ) 01:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop disrupting deletion discussions with bogus procedural arguments. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop mass AfD'ing articles when there is already a centralised discussion on the very subject. Jeni  ( talk ) 01:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just read the nomination. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just read my response. Jeni  ( talk ) 01:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have scoured your response, and see no evidence that this bus route meets WP:GNG ... and now an other editor has commented at the other wikiproject discussion you linked to, agreeing that route 187 is thoroughly non-notable. Yet still you persist in trying find a ruse to oppose deletion. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Aha, I thought that was the game: to just shut up anyone who wants to delete an article, rtaher than discussing its merits. Thanks for confiring your disruptive intent.
 * However, this is a deletion discussion. The issue at stake is the notability of the article. Do you have any evidence that this bus route meets WP:GNG? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh my flippin gawd, you just don't get it do you? Do I have to spell it out for you in simple words? I shouldn't have to, this isn't simplewiki. "I have made no comments regarding the notability of this route nor am I attempting to make any." Jeni  ( talk ) 02:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If you have nothing to say on the notability of the article, stop posting disruptive nonsense to the AFD discussion. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Guys, please? Stop biting each other's heads off! BHG, maybe consider holding back on nominating any more articles and joining in the discussion? And Jeni, maybe consider not commenting here if it's not about the article's notability? Both of you need to stop squabbling about this. Aiken   &#9835;  02:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Oops, missed this one. Essentially per BrownHairedGirl. GNG is an important guideline and shouldn't discarded lightly. It is important for good reason.  Without significant coverage in reliable sources, it is usually impossible to have an encyclopaedic article about a subject that is properly verified.  These bus route articles are a case in point: they are littered with original research and for all we know could be totally inaccurate.  The reason they are littered with original research is because the reliable sources aren't there.  For that reason, the original research is fatal and unsalvageable.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. No evidence of notability beyond directory information. routine information, and original research. Edison (talk) 06:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of bus routes in London I was the editor who praised the article, and now accept that I was wrong to do so. As a plausible search term it should be redirected rather than deleted, but I accept that it probably doesn't justify an article, unlike many others of the type which do. Alzarian16 (talk) 08:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Edison. I don't think it's a plausible search term. Aiken   &#9835;  14:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * delete or redirect. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources.--Crossmr (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Mkativerata. Resolute 01:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Fundamentally unencyclopedic. Suggest compiling all these articles into a wikibook, not a bunch of separate encyclopedia articles.  That puts all the info in one place, which is probably what readers want anyway.  66.127.52.47 (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - Endorse IP's suggestion above mine too, the information could be productively maintained on another WMF project according to their rules. WP's are entirely "is it encyclopaedic? is it notable?". Orderinchaos 17:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:MILL. Inclusion of such articles makes us an indiscriminate collection of information. RadManCF &#x2622; open frequency 17:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable third party sources - name drops only. Karanacs (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 *  Redirect as there is a reasonable list article and I do think it's a very plausible search term. Hobit (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep all information contained in this article is verifiable. The majority of London bus routes are notable, and the system is notable. Dew Kane (talk) 04:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * EXTREMELY STRONG DELETE!!!! Because anyone who wants to keep this article is the same as Adolf Hitler.  Why do I say that? Because he thought the British people were stupid. "A nation of shopkeepers," I think he said. Or was that Napoleon?  Well, no matter. Anyway, keeping these articles on London bus routes sends the message that we think the British are too stupid to get this information to the world without the help of "an encyclopedia anyone can edit."  Not as bad as the London Blitz, but at heart the same.Steve Dufour (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * While I agree with you that the article should be deleted, I'm not seeing why Godwin's Law needed to be violated in doing so. Orderinchaos 17:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Disclaimer (as per talk page request) Fans of the London bus system are not really Nazis. This was a joke. However, I still think bus routes are not suitable topics for WP articles since they are only of interest to potential riders.Steve Dufour (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments:
 * 1.) While I still support this being kept, even if the majority say delete, it should be merged to a parent article, and the edit history retained, so in the future, someone can dig up what is already written in an old version, and improve upon it.
 * 2.) Steve Defour's comments are extremely offensive and should not be considered in the final closing. He should possibly be blocked for them. Being of interest only to a small crowd, such as bus riders, is not a good reason NOT to include an article. I was in London in 1999 on a trip and I rode the buses there. I do not see any guideline that says an article must be deleted if it is only of interest to a small number of people. Dew Kane (talk) 04:58, 4 April 2010 (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.