Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 414 (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 03:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

London Buses route 414
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There was an AfD on this less than six months ago. Is it any more notable than before? Laun chba  ller  18:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect: the article should probably have been reverted to its redirect, but that's unfortunately been forestalled by this nomination, which I hope turns into a SNOW closure. The current article is smaller than the one that was redirected with much of its text taken from that one, and all four of its citations are also from that version, so it's at least as lacking in notability as its predecessor, if not more so. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Ordinary bus route.TheLongTone (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * SNOW close as a Redirect—there is insufficient change from the last AfD, so the previous result should be sustained.  Imzadi 1979  →   03:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment When most of the articles have been redirected to the list, will this part of the list of UK bus routes be deleted as the others were? Peter James (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If the consensus at AfD has been to redirect titles like this to a list, then there is consensus that the list should exist and so it should not be deleted without explicit consensus. Buses in London are qualitatively different to buses in almost every other part of the UK and so the arguments applied to one do not automatically apply to the other. Thryduulf (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It depends on the reason for redirecting to the list. If it's lack of notability, as is the case with many fictional characters or locations, these have been redirected to the lists and then the lists deleted. Even if there's consensus that the content should exist, but that a list or combined article may be a better way of presenting the information, I'm not sure (the current discussion at Articles for deletion/UFO sightings in China is an example). The situation with buses in London appears to be because of different views of participants in the Buses and London WikiProjects; listing the least notable London routes but not the more notable routes in other places (whether in the UK or elsewhere) may be an example of systemic bias. Peter James (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you think that List of London bus routes should not exist then you should AfD it. That said, it has been kept twice.-- Laun  chba  ller  17:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral on that, I just think that topics should be structured with as little bias as possible (and unfortunately it's inevitable that there will still be some if these lists exist at all, because verifiability may be a problem). With the AFD process, its possible that (for example) in a list split alphabetically, or by year, some pages could be kept and others deleted. If "List of UK bus routes" is created maybe this could be merged into it. Peter James (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A list of UK bus routes would be unwieldy and arguably indiscriminate as there is no central organisation or single authority for the whole of the UK. In contrast, bus routes in London are trivially verifiable both individually and as a set as they are all regulated by Transport for London. Additionally there have been books written about buses in London as a whole and about some routes individually (I haven't looked to see if the 414 is among those), with some routes dating back over a century. Thryduulf (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't know some routes had been written about individually. The 414 certainly hasn't been because it is too recent a route but care to give examples of routes that have?-- Laun  chba  ller  09:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't provide any examples off the top of my head unfortunately, but I recall some were listed in one of the previous discussions where bus routes in London were brought up (there have been many though and I can't remember where or when it was). I'll ask the question of an email group about public transport in London that I'm part of which is frequented by many bus enthusiasts though (rail based transport is more my thing). Thryduulf (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Overnight two people have independently mentioned route 84 (which runs to St Albans). I've tried finding something on google books but Wikipedia and Wiki-sourced books are flooding the search results more than I have time to try and filter out at the moment. Thryduulf (talk) 09:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: This is one of a veritable flood of reinstated from redirect (and somewhat re-edited) bus-route articles by Ibsiadkgneoeb in the past few days. Route 414 was the first, and had an edit summary of "new article"; all the subsequent restorations (starting June 1) merely say "copy edit", which is not accurate for a restoration: routes 295, 91, 345, 490, 430, 235, 344, 319, 90, 46, 124, 474, 425, 147, 85, 119, 200, 32, 332, 316, 21, 242, H28, 333, 423, 145, 181, 225, 199, and 273. (I've spot-checked these, and there may be an expansion or two in there, but all the ones I checked were indeed restorations.) Notability remains dubious, and I've just reverted 199, as the text and sourcing is much the same as the previous version, which was reverted due to lack of notability. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep While I do acknowledge that some of these articles are comparatively small when compared to like articles, I find it frustrating when in bus operator articles such as Arriva London, Tower Transit etc where routes are wikilinked, that many default to the List of London bus routes article which offers little info above listing the route, its operator and destination. Yes the older routes have more to say and are likely to have a greater audience, but shouldn't we be seeking to divulge as much info as possible, within reason? I think it would be an overkill to have separate articles for individual school routes, or if an article can't offer anything more than what is covered in the List of London bus routes article.


 * No I did not seek consensus, but with the exception of this article, all others copyedited were redirected by two long since retired editors on the basis that no verifiable cites could be found, no consensus cycle ever being gone through. Only articles with cites have been reintroduced, if none could be found I have left. While I have used the previous edits as a base, have sought to beef up and verify rather than just perform straight reinstates. End result is some are a bit larger, some a bit smaller. Some of the articles are now much broader and compliant than like articles that have hitherto not been challenged. Route 436 for example was introduced at the same time as the 414, has had one change in vehicle type. Some routes by their nature see more change than others. Some routes still operate more or less as they did in the 1950s while other like route 425 have involved 3 operators in less than 6 years.


 * An alternative would be to add a history section for each route in the List of London bus routes, but I imagine it would become unwieldy considering it is already 165k.


 * While some of the articles particularly for the newer routes are relatively small and with little to be said at this stage, it does lay a foundation for future editors after the current generation of editors leave the Wiki building, who may not have access to some of the offline cites. In fifty years, the 414 may have had six operators, eight vehicle types and other events that would justify a stand alone article without question. I would have thought best if the article be built up in 'real time' when the cite and knowledge pool is at its peak, rather than retrospectively when this has diminished. Ibsiadkgneoeb (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Lists of Pokemon splits into (1-100), (101-200) etcetera. If we did what you're suggesting and model it after List of night buses in London, I'd say that's a very good idea.-- Laun  chba  ller  15:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Ibsiadkgneoeb, it comes down to notability, and that means mention in third-party reliable sources (bus company websites or press releases don't count), not any old cite. 199, the one I reverted, had a single citation, nowhere near enough even if it is reliable (and I couldn't find an "About" page to see what I could determine about them, though a URL that includes "londonbusesbyadam" naturally causes some concern). The articles I've looked at just don't qualify as notable. We don't add non-notable articles here at Wikipedia because they may someday become notable, we wait until they are notable to add them. And if they are notable, that sort of sourcing will be there. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you mean "londonbusesbyadam.zenfelio.com"? I once had a citation from that source removed from an article by, who later confirmed that it is not a reliable source.-- Laun  chba  ller  18:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect as above to List of London bus routes. Despite having a history, it really isn't notable enough to warrant an article. Wait until the Queen goes on it, then it's notable!  ayc li ffe talk 15:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:45, 6 June 2014 (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.