Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 403


 * 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 redirect to List of bus routes in London. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 03:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

London Buses route 403

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable bus route, fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage. I'd originally redirected this to List of London bus routes but this was reverted claiming that it's notable purely because it dates back to 1924. I dispute this fact.

I'll happily admit that there are routes out there that are notable enough for inclusion, however this one isn't. Jeni  ( talk ) 14:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete and Redirect per nom - Some London routes aren't notable and this is one of them, I say Delete & Redirect as I'm under the impression someone will probably revert and then never source it whereas if it's deleted and then redirected there'd be no reverts so thus no unsourced article. Anyway fails GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 16:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect. Fails WP:GNG. There is nothing special about this route, including its age.Charles (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep What determines which route is notable and not notable enough for inclusion. I reverted the edit per WP:UKBRQDRIVE, Route has a significant history. Class455fan1 (talk to me) 08:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:Notability determines which route is notable and not notable enough for inclusion. Do you care to explain what's significant about it's history? I've searched and I can't find anything significant about route 403 other than service changes. If you can give some sort of significant coverage, then I'll happily withdraw my nomination Jeni  ( talk ) 09:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, WP:UKBRQDRIVE does not override Wikipedia's notability guidelines, it aims to build and clarify them. I know this because I was the one who set UKBRQDRIVE up! Jeni  ( talk ) 09:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect. Doesn't meet WP:GNG and searching for sources hasn't turned up any likely to make it. Markpackuk (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep It beggars belief that a London bus route which existed for nearly 100 years would not be notable. I have no difficulty finding coverage in sources such  as this.  The worst case is that we'd merge into some more general page such as List of London bus routes and so, per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE there is no case for deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * By all means edit the article to establish notability, but existing for nearly 100 years does not on its own make it notable. Please show significant coverage as per Wikipedia's guidelines. Jeni  ( talk ) 19:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Definitely agree with Class455fan1 (talk to me) 10:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with someone won't save the article, It existing for over 100 years doesn't give it a free pass to an article, The bus route is non notable and serves better to everyone as a redirect. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I already found coverage in a book and will pop into the London Transport Museum to see what more they have. As for serving people better, that argument is not making any sense.  The current page has good prose content about this history of the route while the list entry is so perfunctory that it is almost free of content. Andrew D. (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Needing to go to a specialist museum to look for information rather confirms lack of the significant secondary coverage needed to meet WP:GNG.Charles (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that's not our policy or practice. Much of our content is based upon specialist sources.  For example, the 5 millionth article, Persoonia terminalis is only covered in specialist sources.  Articles which Charles has created, such as George Wyndham, 3rd Earl of Egremont or Tolson Museum, are based on obscure, specialist sources.  The idea that we can't or shouldn't look in libraries or museums for supporting material seems quite contrary to our educational mission and would reduce the project to just pop cultural drivel and general news. Andrew D. (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't confirm notability or non-notability, suggestion that sources should be available online is Recentism or other systemic bias. Peter James (talk) 04:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody said anything about needing to be available online or about not using libraries in general. The Wikipedian community deems some subjects, including major aristocrats and museums to be inherently notable. others such as primary schools, smaller shopping malls and ordinary bog standard bus routes are not generally considered notable. We are not supposed to do general news either.Charles (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the community does not recognise a concept of inherent notability for aristocrats or museums as I have seen examples of both nominated and deleted. Andrew D. (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep One of Wiki's greatest potentials is to create articles by bringing together information not readily accessible to the population at large. The suggestion that because this is held in a specialist library, the subject is not notable is silly. Some of the most valuable Wiki articles are those that have been written by editors conducting archival digs in all sorts of obscure places.
 * In terms of this article, the subject is notable enough, it’s just under referenced. This and other London route articles do suffer from having information that could be considered enthusiast orientated (bus fleet numbers etc) or travel guide like, (hours of operation, listing every stop etc), but this should not be a reason to delete the article. There are many published works on the historical element of these type of articles as witnessed by cites on other London bus route articles. Just a case of the right editors with access to these being attracted to the project.
 * These bus route articles are smaller parts of a bigger picture unlike say Worcestershire bus route 144 which has little interface with other articles. Their existence prevents the operator articles (e.g. Arriva London) being polluted with lists of contract changes (given they are re-tenderd every 5-7 years) as was previously happening,  routes tables  or lists of desintations (e.g. Clapham Junction railway station) when a wikilink can substitute. 11Expo (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG requires significant secondary source coverage outside of local or niche sources. This has still not been demonstrated.Charles (talk) 09:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete- non-notable bus route. Wikipedia is not a bus timetable, so we really need more than "Route 403 runs from here to there. It opened in 1924" which is about all I can see in the sources. Reyk  YO!  12:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hardly a bus timetable. Class455fan1 (talk to me) 17:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I do not see a strong case for deletion per WP:Outcomes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just out of interest, did you read WP:OUTCOMES before you quoted it? This is a direct quote from that page: "Articles about individual bus routes are rarely notable, recommendations to merge into a suitable list article are common." Jeni  ( talk ) 16:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I see alot of Keeps and alot of unrelated essays quoted but I don't see any sources that establish notability..... The WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITEXISTS !votes should probably be ignored... – Davey 2010 Talk 16:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of bus routes in London. Longevity does not estabilish notability for a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL bus route. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of bus routes in London. While I agree with 's sentiment, policy and guidelines are relatively clear that the subject does not pass WP:GNG. Following the consensus established in WP:OUTCOMES, the redirect is the best option.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jkudlick t c s 08:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (yak)  09:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete or Redirect—as noted above, individual bus routes are typically not notable. They have an ephemeral nature compared to other transportation corridors, so unless WP:GNG-level sourcing is added, this one doesn't surpass the bar for inclusion as a stand-alone article.  Imzadi 1979  →   18:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of bus routes in London as there is nothing exceptional about this particular route. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Buscruft. Szzuk (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of bus routes in London. Seen one bus route, seen 'em all. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:28, 12 December 2015 (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.