Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TriMet Bus Line 55


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 07:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

TriMet Bus Line 55

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * A list of destinations on a local bus route is not an encyclopaedia article (WP:NOTDIRECTORY)
 * The page to which a merge was proposed has since been deleted for similar reason Baldy Bill  ( sharpen the razor &#124; see my reflection ) 23:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTDIR, point #4. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete (or possibly Merge) per above comments. — Rutebega ( talk ) 14:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: Individual bus routes are almost never notable for Wikipedia, and a substantial number of references (from reliable sources) would be needed to demonstrate such notability in the rare cases where a city bus route actually is notable. By contrast, this article cites no sources whatsoever. To Rutebega: The merge possibility is moot, as Baldy Bill noted, because that other article was deleted after an AFD discussion. SJ Morg (talk) 08:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: not notable, poorly written, unreferenced, and little chance this article would be referred to for any reason.  If one were to seek its (properly) written content, the Trimet website would be a far more productive and up-to-date source.  —EncMstr (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per everybody above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:06, 14 February 2013 (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.