Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 82


 * 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. Since List of bus routes in London already mentions this route, I'm just doing a redirect. If you need article history or anything just ask. Missvain (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

London Buses route 82

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Just like most London Buses routes, this is another run of the mill bus route with nothing overly notable nor spectacular. Only ounce of notability is that it is a recently discontinued route. Ajf773 (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Like most London bus topics, this is notable per WP:GNG, as London buses are historic and well-documented. The nomination is based upon WP:MILL which is neither policy nor guideline.  It's just an essay which means that it has "no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community".  Per WP:CENSOR and WP:NOTPAPER, we do not delete pages for this reason. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Most London bus routes are not notable, and those that two are covered thoroughly using independent secondary sources. You have not provided anything additional to what exists in the article to validate notability for this particular route. Ajf773 (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:CENSOR applies to controversial topics. Is a London bus route controversial? WP:NOTPAPER also explicitly states "Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars." Also, notability guidelines state notability is not inherited. Being a part of something notable does not make something else notable. This is a discussion not for the London bus, but this specific bus route. Ardenter (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, merge or redirect. Just like with every other nomination of this type, there is never a good reason to delete an article about a verifiable bus route in a major city. If it isn't notable enough for a standalone article (which some bus routes are) then it should be merged or redirected to an appropriate higher-level article. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If the reasons are that the route is not notable, as are most bus routes in a major city (including this), then delete is plausible. You mentioned an alternative is to either merge or redirect - to where? Ajf773 (talk) 08:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The point is that if some bus routes in London are notable (which they are), the bus network as a whole is notable (which it is) and there exists a list of bus routes in London (which there does) then all the bus routes in London are likely search terms and so the title should not be a redlink meaning that deletion is off the table. WP:ATD also strongly favours merging and redirecting over deletion in situations like this. List of bus routes in London is the blindingly obvious target, but there may be others. Thryduulf (talk) 10:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of bus routes in London as WP:ATD. Jumpytoo Talk 21:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The route is not mentioned at the target article. Ajf773 (talk) 08:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Then mention it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a discontinued route. If it's not notable there is no requirement to mention it. Ajf773 (talk) 09:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My point is that these routes should be mentioned, given that the purpose is to provide encyclopaedic coverage of the subject not a travel guide. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per user:Andrew Davidson Lilporchy (talk) 06:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete fails GNG, no one here has actually presented significant coverage in reliable sources to prove otherwise. SK2242 (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - No significant sources have been given that establishes any sort of notability. For a route that existed from 1986 - 2017 you would certainly expect something better than maps and road changes. Given the route isn't mentioned at List of bus routes in London I see no point redirecting there as no "defunct routes" exist (nor should it!). – Davey 2010 Talk 13:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Why should such a list not exist? Defunct routes (or at least ones with some degree of longevity) seem to be an equally encyclopaedic part of the coverage of buses in London as current ones do. Thryduulf (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Because defunct routes aren't notable and it would set a precedent that this material should be in articles when it shouldn't. Readers wanting that sort of material can always hop over to Wikia or whatever it's called. – Davey 2010 Talk 18:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If a list of current bus routes is a notable aspect of buses in London, and notability is not temporary, then why are former routes differently notable to current ones? Thryduulf (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just an arbitrary fact, routes 10 and RV1 are defunct and still have articles. However I'm not debating those there, just route 82. Ajf773 (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Such a section did exist until deleted in September 2019 seemingly without discussion or an attempt to addresss issues. Have partially reinstated. Lilporchy (talk) 06:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - No obvious reason not to include this information. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Really? WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 09:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * could you provide significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to show its notable then? SK2242 (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Either all London bus routes are notable or none of them are. Only nominating one makes no sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not true. While most are completely non notable, there are a few exceptions, ie London Buses route 11. Otherwise you have given no clear reason for keeping. Ajf773 (talk) 09:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Category:Bus routes in London. Pretty much every one has an article. Procedurally, it makes no sense whatsoever to only nominate a single one. I tend to agree that most of them aren't notable, but nominating them piecemeal is not the way to change that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * what are you talking about? those are just the ones that haven’t been deleted yet. There are over 500 routes in London. SK2242 (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It makes more sense to nominate each one individually than every single one in a group. Ajf773 (talk) 08:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I haven't researched the subject at hand, but Thryduulf's reasoning is sound. Those are the choices, that's one of the purposes of redirects, and this is not a bus route directory where we only list things because they exist now.  Uncle G (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm getting rather tired of these discussions where deletion is called for but an obvious redirect target is available. Just redirect it if it is not notable, and if that is contested discuss it on the article talk page, rather than start an attention-seeking deletion discussion, and leave deletion discussions for those articles where an admin needs to hit the "delete" button (something that I was shocked to find a few months ago that many people don't understand to be the purpose of AfD). Phil Bridger (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing 'attention-seeking' about this. AfD's have been used for at least 50 other bus routes in London and dozens more elsewhere. They are necessary sometimes to solve such disputes. Ajf773 (talk) 09:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , On the one hand, AfD is not (and has never been) Articles for Discussion, so you should not open the debate unless you think deleting might be a satisfactory outcome. On the other hand, other avenues such as Proposed article mergers sit for ages without much feedback, so AfD can be chosen in order to get a better and quicker feedback - which can be done per WP:IAR, if there is sufficient agreement it is a sensible idea. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of bus routes in London per the suggestion given by Thryduulf. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge or Redirect as stated above to bus routes in London. No need for an independent page. Star7924 (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of bus routes in London per above.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Those saying merge, there is nothing really to merge as the List of bus routes in London page now mentions the route (alongside a few discontinued routes), the same as it does all other 500 routes. Ajf773 (talk) 08:46, 29 April 2021 (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.