Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 331


 * 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. without prejudice to a merge/redirect. There are 3 valid keep votes (I disregard proceedural keeps) and 1 redirect - there are 6 good delete votes (I disregard Stifle's - wikipedia isn't travel guide - but so what? I gave lest weight to John Naggle as "being a rehash" isn't in itself problematic unless we've got a copyvio). 60% for deletion isn't quite a consensus - particularly given one of the keeps is equally happy with a merge.) Scott Mac (Doc) 12:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

London Buses route 331

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

There are some external links to primary sources which demonstrate that this bus route does indeed exist (though no footnotes), but there is no evidence that it meets the notability test of WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Some of the material in the article could be incorporated in an expanded List of bus routes in London, so a merger may be appropriate. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC) The assessments there seem pretty shoddy. For example, this comment praises London Buses route 187, but I see no evidence there of notability. Meanwhile, Jeni contested a series of PRODs for West Midlands bus routes for which there was no evidence of notability. If WikiProjects don't follow accepted standards of notability, then editors really do not have valid grounds for complaint that community-wide forums are used to remove non-notable material. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  --  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  --  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge. Bus routes ought to be held to the test of "significant coverage in reliable sources". Otherwise they cannot be the subject of reliable encyclopaedic articles. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:16, 29 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 ) 22:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Then why are you choosing to ignore the discussion and mass AfD articles? You have noted in a comment somewhere that the discussion has been ongoing for a week, what you have failed to notice is that there is currently a couple of editors already going through each bus route article, assessing them for notability, adding references where needed and redirecting where notability isn't there. I see this as a pointy nomination more than anything. I'd have thought an admin would be setting an example and contributing to a discussion rather than these rash nominations. Jeni  ( talk ) 23:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I only AFDed 6; I PRODded 13, which you disrupted by removing the PROD without offering any reason to keep the articles. If you persist in disrupting lightweight mechanisms for removing non-notable material, don't accuse anyone else of pointiness. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My reasons for removing the prods were very very clear, if you took the time to read the edit summaries (where it is generally accepted that reasons for PROD removal are located). Jeni  ( talk ) 23:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your edit summaries offered no valid reason to keep the articles. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes they did, they stated that there is already an ongoing discussion on these articles. Jeni  ( talk ) 23:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your reasons for removing the West Midlands PRODs were that you asserted notability for those bus routes, even tho there was no evidence of notability and no claim of notability. Those reasons were indeed clear: clearly nonsense. If you think that this is  a notable bus route, it's little wonder that you don't want the wider community to scrutinise the notability of any such articles, and prefer to keep these things away from AFD. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

What relevance does that have to this discussion? Jeni ( talk ) 00:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's highly relevant. You object on procedural grounds to AFD, when you have repeatedly disrupted lightweight procedures for removing non-notable material. You can't have it both ways: if you contest PRODs on bogus grounds, article will be taken to AFD. All this flurry of procedural nonsense from you is simply part of along pattern of you trying to disrupt the removal of non-notable material which you want to keep. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are bringing up a completely different article which was objected to on different grounds. Tell me again how this is relevant? Jeni  ( talk ) 00:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's relevant because it is evidence that all your procedural ruses are just a form of disruption, and that your actual purpose is trying to keep non-notable material. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment on procedural keeps. These should be disregarded. Any editor is entitled to bring an AfD, regardless of whatever discussions are taking place within a Wikiproject. The community at large decides notability.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep – since there is an on-going discussion elsewhere, please withdraw discussion to that location. The article can be renominated, if necessary, after the conclusion of the current discussion. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep on its own merits. All established bus routes are major features of the local geography, and if an article can be written, it should be; whether they are better merged is a question of style. The information is encyclopedic. . If people look at these articles and decide that they want to keep them, that makes a practical policy of exception to the GNG.There are other ways of showing notability, and it is in fact contrary to the current WP:N guideline to say the the GNG is the only way.  Personally, I think trying to remove establish borderline articles is a very poor use of time here, when there are so many important things like unsourced BLPs to attend to,   DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability offers another way only where there are agreed separate guidelines.
 * There is a very good practical reason for GNG: that it is an inevitable consequence of the core policy WP:V. Without it, an article can exist only as either original research or as repetition of primary source material.
 * In the case of these articles, most of the material is simply unsourced, a situation which is all too common with topics which fail GNG. This article is a good example of that: it has no footnotes, and there is no indication of whether the content is from primary sources, or some unreliable source, or is just something made up. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of bus routes in London as non-notable. Very few sources showed up on Google, perhaps unsurprisingly as the route has a short, simple history. A redirect would be pereferable to deletion as this is a plausible search term which is already linked to by multiple articles. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A redirect can be created after deletion, but redirecting without deletion leaves anyone free to simply revert the redirect. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is the worst argument for deletion I've ever heard in my life. Jeni  ( talk ) 11:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As you should know if you had read the nomination, the substantive argument for deletion is clear, and founded in policy: that the article does not meet WP:GNG. Neither of you have offered any evidence to counter that.
 * So why exactly do you object to deleting the article, and then creating a redirect? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - an insignificant history and lack of reliable sources indicate this should be deleted. Aiken   &#9835;  14:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Disruptive deletion spree made without due diligence per Articles for deletion/London Buses route 74. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF, please. I did indeed follow WP:BEFORE. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * delete or redirect. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources.--Crossmr (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - this, and related articles, are basically a rehash of info from a bus fan website at . --John Nagle (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as insufficiently notable per the WP:GNG. There is no evidence this specific bus route has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by multiple, independent, reliable sources. As such, it is not possible to write an article which meets the non-negotiable requirements of WP:V and WP:NOR. — Satori Son 12:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia isn't a travel guide. Stifle (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What part of this article reads like a travel guide?  Aiken   &#9835;   14:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable third party sources - name drops only. Karanacs (talk) 13:23, 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) 04:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: 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. Dew Kane (talk) 04:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Even Col W does not actually claim that this route is notable, merely that he predicts it to become notable at some point in the future. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so predictions of notability are irrelevant; the argument to retain it "for consistency" ignores the fact that over a hundred articles on bus routes have already been redirect by the London Transport WikiProject: there is no consistent retention of these articles. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a comparatively new route and so lacks the rich history of the lower-numbered London routes. But I have added a couple of sources to demonstrate that this route has been noticed too.  No doubt, it will be covered by London bus scholars in their thorough documentation in due course and so the article should be retained for consistency with the other similar articles and as a foundation for further work. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This really is getting silly. The two sources you have added are: i) a tourist guide to Hillingdon which lists the bus as one way of getting to a few tourist venues. It's a real stretch to even include this stuff in the article, but as a claim to notabilty it's a non-starter. ii) a story about a bus driver killed at the bus garage, one of whose routes was the 331. Tragic accident, but the article name-checks the 331 just once; it too is not evidence of the notability of the route, and its inclusion in the article may breach WP:NOTMEMORIAL.
 * 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.