Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus routes 51, X51 and 951A


 * 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   Keep as per consensus and the absence of deletion calls beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

West Midlands bus routes 51, X51 and 951A

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No asertion of notability, and no evidence of notability per WP:GNG's test of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

This article was PRODded a few days ago, and the PROD was contested on the grounds that "this one at least has some route-history". Even if that route history had some references (it's quite detailed but entirely unsourced), a route history is no evidence of notability. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  --  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  --  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - After discussions last year at WT:UKBRQDRIVE this was one of the few West Midlands routed deemed to be notable enough to deserve an article. Other non notable routes were redirected at the time. Jeni  ( talk ) 22:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Jeni, if this article is to be kept, we don't need assertions, we need evidence of how the route meets WP:GNG. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable and historic. There are plenty of references for this; we shouldn't delete just because on-one's had time to copy them to Wikipedia yet. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Agree with Jeni and Andy's points. This is a historic and therefore valuble bus route article. If this goes then surely the articles for ALL bus routes in London MUST go. Dudleybus 11:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "References probably can be found somewhere" is not exactly how WP:V works.
 * Nor is age; plenty of things have been around for a long time without being notable, like the street I live on.
 * And I think we agree that nearly all the London bus route articles should go, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep this one. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep but some independent sources asserting notability should be added soon, otherwise it's quite likely to fail a future AfD. Orderinchaos 17:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep since information on the bus route is verifiable, and can be sourced. Dew Kane (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep'  on the same basis as my argument for the others: significant features of human geography.  DGG ( talk ) 21:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems to be an acknowledgement that it doesn't meet the existing criteria at WP:GNG, and a plea for a new exemption from the GNG for bus routes. If DGG wants to argue for such an exemption, a proposal should be made at WT:N. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:31, 3 April 2010 (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.