Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 267


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 12:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

London Buses route 267

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Back-and-forth edit warring to revert it to a useless redirect to a list with no substantial content (and not even bothering to link to a section target).

I'm neutral on this, but we delete articles through AfD, not through bickering. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete yet another non-notable bus route with no evidence of notability. Jeni  ( talk ) 14:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  18:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  18:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment What is the definition of notability for a bus route? I'm sure there are plenty of robust printed references to it, but what level are we looking for? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You'll find everything you need at WP:GNG Jeni  ( talk ) 19:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Per the overly generic GNG though, it's an obvious pass, simply for the mass of printed timetables and directories. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You appear to be referring to primary sources that are not independent of the subject. Got any non trivial independent reliable sources? Jeni  ( talk ) 21:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Such as what? It's not hard to show that this is a bus route, that it exists and that a great many people travel on it (there are also plenty of images at Commons). GNG is too blunt though - it's presumably your point here that meeting GNG alone isn't enough to justify an article on a bus route. So what is? We do have article on bus routes, so what is required to show their notability. GNG is both easy, but not enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The text of this article discusses the route's history. If you (or any other editor) can find secondary sources that discuss this history, then that may be sufficient to substantiate notability. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:DEL8. I could not find secondary sources that discuss this bus route's significance, history, or impact on local communities. Unless someone can show me sources that discuss this bus route in some depth, I think deletion is appropriate. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Nordic   Dragon  09:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The nominator is neutral on this, not seeking to delete it. I'm just trying to clear up some edit-warring. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would've been noting your suggestion of deletion on edit warring - without anything to revert, who is going to recreate the article once deleted? Nordic   Dragon  14:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per above - ot every bus route is otable ad this is yet aother case, Ayway o evidece of otability fails GG. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:13, 27 March 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.