Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 372


 * 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

London Buses route 372

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Another London bus route with no evidence of notability per WP:GNG.

The article's lead says that it "is notable for being one a limited number of services run by Transport for London to cross the Greater London boundary", but that's not evidence of notablity, it's a factoid which may be of passing interest to dedicated students of the topic.

Per WP:GNG, notability is established through substantial coverage in reliable sources, and there is no evidence of such coverage for this route. The factoid about boundary-crossing can be mentioned in the List of bus routes in London  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  --  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  --  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Only 3 buses every hour, and an unremarkable history. Aiken   &#9835;  21:54, 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 ) 22:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is the discussion? Aiken   &#9835;  22:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just linked to it above :) Jeni  ( talk ) 22:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is irrelevant. Projects do no own articles.--Crossmr (talk) 00:50, 31 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) 00:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is immaterial and irrelevant. Projects do not own articles.--Crossmr (talk) 00:50, 31 March 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) 04:53, 4 April 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. .  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 ) 02:30, 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) 03:33, 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) 03:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The new sources which I added show notability, although it's a pity the route history is only covered by londonbusroutes.net. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Disruptive deletion spree made without due diligence per Articles for deletion/London Buses route 74. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking of disruptive sprees, I'd say your spree of assuming bad faith and making !votes without proper consideration would be one.--Crossmr (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * delete or redirect. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources.--Crossmr (talk) 00:50, 31 March 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) 04:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * strong keep very well referenced article. Okip  15:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - various reliable london transport sources can source the article, and I can imagine some independent guide on transport describing the route. If I were in London I could probably find one in a newsagent or bookstore too. Hence there is all probability this is reliable. Does anyone really think there would be no local travel material mentioning this? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 6 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.