Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 549


 * 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. Fram (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

London Buses route 549

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

London bus route which is not notable. Jenuk1985 |  Talk  19:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Written well enough, provides information that may be hard to find elsewhere. It just needs sources to make sure that the information is reliable. Instead of 'delete' tag, it should have an 'unsourced' tag.Chrisahn (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If information is hard to find elsewhere, that could mean that it is not notable. Do you know if it is likely that sufficient non-primary sources exist? — Snigbrook  23:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If there isn't enogh notability for a separate article, it could be redirected (and possibly merged) to List of bus routes in London. — Snigbrook 23:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If something is hard to find elsewhere, then how are you going to prove or disprove notability. What you're really doing is confusing notability with verifiability. Still grounds for deletion, but based on a different reason. - Mgm|(talk) 10:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In a way, you are right. The article may fail WP:N, I'm not sure. I still think that articles like this are useful and thus should be kept. This article doesn't hurt anyone, it's not an advertisment, so I don't see why it must be deleted. But that's a bigger discussion that I don't really want to get into here.Chrisahn (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe have a read of WP:NOHARM. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  17:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, but I did add some other arguments besides "doesn't hurt". While we're at it, you should have a read of WP:JNN. Applies exactly to your nomination.Chrisahn (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nom, not notable, can be re-made if anyth interesting happens. I'm all for coverage, but let's be objective  Chzz  ►  23:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  00:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Articles on bus-routes need maintenance every time the time tables change. The operator and passenger transport authority have the incentive to keep information up to date.  When the creator loses enthuiasm, he will stop maintaining it, and it will become obsolete.  Obsolete information is dangerous, becasue it is liable to mislead.  This is a strong reason for not having articles on bus routes.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that's a strong reason for putting a tag 'warning! may become obsolete!' (don't know if such a template exists) on top of sections that are in danger of becoming unmaintained, and deleting or updating the section (or the whole article) if and when it becomes obsolete.Chrisahn (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete yes, very well written, but does it satisfy WP:N? I somehow don't think a common-or-garden bus route satisfies that. A bloke called AndrewConvosMy Messies 19:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There are literally hundreds of articles about London bus routes. Why is route 549 less notable than, say, 78, 80, 123, 288, 356, 486, U7 or hundreds of others? Tag articles as 'stub' or 'unsourced' or whatever if necessary, but keep them and let them grow.Chrisahn (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Duplicate vote struck out by Jenuk1985
 * 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.