Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 70

London Buses route 70

London Buses route 70 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article deleted before on notability. Nothing has appeared to have changed from before. Nordic Dragon 12:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 12:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Nordic Dragon, where are you getting "Nothing has appeared to have changed from before" from? The deleted article read—in full—London Buses route 70 is a Transport for London contracted bus route in London, United Kingdom. The service is currently contracted to Metroline., plus a list of destinations. This is clearly different enough that WP:G4 doesn't apply; do you have any actual policy-based reason for deletion? ‑ Iridescent 13:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't WP:Notdir be sufficient? Myself and a number of other editors (i.e. User:Davey2010 etc etc) deleted/redirected a number of articles on the ground of notability. Nordic Dragon 13:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• I would argue that it's "sufficiently" identical, there is nothing additional which adds notability beyond "x happened on y date" Jeni ^(talk) 13:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - One of the many many London bus routes we have which don't even come close to meeting our notability guidelines. Some are notable, most aren't. Jeni ^(talk) 13:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thankyou Jeni. Nordic Dragon 13:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Keep- Per Iridescent. If it is deleted, then you may as well redirect it to List of bus routes in London rather than fully deleting it. I think you could have just redirected it to List of bus routes in London rather than listing it at AfD, like i did to route 66. Class455fan1 (talk) 13:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, are you suggesting we keep the article as it is, or are you suggesting that it be redirected to List of bus routes in London? It's not clear from your comment. If you're suggesting that the article be kept, how does this meet any of the notability guidelines? Jeni ^(talk) 13:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I am going for Keep because, while some routes may not meet the notability guidelines, they are encyclopaedic. They do have some facts on them. For example a fact can be "Did you know that, after a successful consultation, route 70 was extended to Chiswick Business Park?". People come to Wikipedia to find out information. I know this because sometimes when i am researching things for schoolwork and revision, I view the pages here. And i have seen people I know look at Wikipedia when they want to find out something.After all, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Plus, all information on there is supported by reliable sources, unlike on some where they have just fansites as sources. Bottom line is, I would like it to be kept because it is encyclopaedic. The reason why i said you could redirect it is because an AfD did not need to be opened i the nominator thought it wasn't notable, he could have just reverted back to your initial redirect. I was going to edit my initial comment but your question beat me to it. Class455fan1 (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

So, if my understanding is correct, you ascertain that because the 70 was extended to Chiswick Business Park makes it notable enough for inclusion? I question that logic.

There is a wikia dedicated to London bus routes where this information is better suited. Jeni ^(talk) 14:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

No, that was an example. There are a number of facts on that page, i just included 1 as an example. Class455fan1 (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Delete - I can't see that there is anything about London bus routes which gives them an inherent notability to have an article in their own right. For one thing, unlike railway lines, there are a lot more of them, and usually a lot less to say about them. In the usual way, we'd be looking for independent secondary sources and coverage, of which I'm not seeing anything. JMWt (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Keep The article is sufficiently notable to warrant retention, and aside from the 1st paragraph is now all cited. This seems more a case of I just don't like it. Given the wide array of editors that have contributed to the various London bus route articles, there seems to be at least a degree of interest.

Given that these AFDs seem to appear randomly, perhaps a more encompassing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport or somewhere similar needs to be held, to try and gain a consensus that could then be applied across the board rather than just having random discussions that may result in superior articles being deleted while inferior ones remain, For example some major city centre routes that are fully cited, e.g. London Buses route 390, have been redirected, while relatively minor outer suburban routes, e.g. London Buses route K5, remain. 11Expo (talk) 06:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you care to expand on how this route passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines, or are you !voting on the basis of I like it? Jeni ^(talk) 08:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Please keep this article. It can give you more information about this bus route. Jeni, please keep this article, but referencing with more verifable sources as part of the standard of Wikipedia. Do this for every bus route in London, please --83.67.147.66 (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)