Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses routes 628 and 688


 * 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. Core desat 04:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

London Buses routes 628 and 688

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a non notable bus route. Wikipedia is not a directory, it is not a guide and it certainly isn't a mirror for the London Transport website. London Transport is notable, but that does not mean that every product/service they offer is. I can find no coverage of this service that is not trivial and certainly none that would meet the requirements of WP:NOTE. Nuttah (talk) 10:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. STORMTRACKER   94  12:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I never have read a reason, good or bad, why a city's bus routes were considered to be encylopedic. Mandsford (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, no notability established, no sources in independent publications used. Cirt (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete. Not needed on Wikipedia.  Malinaccier (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment What about the rest? List of bus routes in London. I think they should all go and the list. --Neon white (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nominate away, and we we'll climb aboard on the next stop. Mandsford (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * The Tfl mirror comparison is spurious - There is information in the article not available on the Tfl site, additionally, any information on the Tfl site regarding the route pertains to current information only, out of date information is lost - wikipedia content is not treated the same way.
 * Establishing notability or sources - the article has existed for 1 month - it is a stub and requires expansion, it should be treated as such as per established WP norms, the article has not even been tagged before being nominated for deletion.
 * MickMacNee (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * All information in the article can be found on a timetabel and at Tfl site. The point the nominator made was that wikipedia isn't intended as a guide for London transport services. How are bus fare's encyclopedic? It seems like blatent advertising by a bus company using wikipedia to advertse their product. --Neon white (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect, not all the information in the article is available from Tfl or a timetable, if this was not the case I would not have said it. MickMacNee (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is very little info in this article that is not available from transport for london and none of it is encyclopedic. --Neon white (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't look to be a really major route unless I'm wrong, nor it does not look to be a BRT/historic/very busy route - if it was one of three maybe the vote would be different. JForget 00:46, 21 December 2007 (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.