Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 278

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2021 July 14.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. I must discount all "keep" opinions because they fail to address the suggested reason for deletion (lack of coverage in reliable sources), or violate WP:NPA/WP:AGF, or both. Sandstein 09:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 278

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

What makes this bus route notable? Some London bus routes do appear to be notable, having attracted some media coverage or mentions in sources, but this one has very little going to it - few passing mentions that fail WP:SIGCOV. Btw, since someone could be confused by formatting, Changes to suburban bus services to support the Elizabeth line is NOT an academic journal article, it is a primary (government) document, and one either case, it just briefly mentions this route in one paragraph in the technical discussion of a proposal ("New route 278 would be introduced between Ruislip and Heathrow Airport..."). Anyway, this entity (particular bus line) does not appear to meet GNG requirements for stand-alone articles, and at best can be redirected to List of bus routes in London. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this was tagged with {{notability}} only minutes before the deletion nomination. What was the purpose of that? This is a well-written article with lots of info and ten sources. How does removing this information improve Wikipedia? NemesisAT (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NemesisAT It was tagged to explain the reasons for the nomination. Since 95% of notability tags stay on articles for years and see nobody addressing the issue, it doesn't make any sense to tag it and wait for years or decades hoping this elicits an action. Anyway, you present no argument for keeping outside WP:ITSHARMLESS (which is hardly a valid one, per linked discussion). Removing this improves Wikipedia since Wikipedia should only have articles that pass WP:GNG requirement. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this article now passes WP:GNG as additional sources (including newspaper articles and a book source) have now been added. NemesisAT (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect. How many times does it need pointing out that deletion is never the right answer for bus routes that or were are part of a notable set (a notable set meaning one that is the topic of an article, section and/or list)? This is because they will always be, at the very least, plausible search terms that should be redirects, and frequently they will contain information that should be merged into a broader article. In this case the history of transport in (north) London is a clearly encyclopaedic topic, and while we don't have such an article yet we will at some point in the future, so keeping the history available is a Good Thing (although it wont be soon, as few people are motivated to write and improve such content when bus related content has to be continuously defended against those who dislike it). Thryduulf (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Thryduulf: As I note in my nom, I am fine with redirecting. But just stealthily readirecting it would be, IMHO, a bad practice, equivalent of stealthy deletion. Since we don't have a separate forum to discuss redirects, AfD has to do. The only other option is no discussion at all, and that I think would be the least desirable outcome, letting one person decide the fate of the article for maybe years, with nobody else aware of this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  You could have started a discussion on the talk page or Wikiproject page if you didn't want to boldly redirect it. If you had boldly redirected it anyone one else could have reverted you if they felt it inappropriate, and then you could have a discussion per WP:BRD. AfD is only the correct venue if you believe the article should be deleted and no alternatives are appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thryduulf, If you think a discussion at a WikiProject should be a prerequisite to an AfD, please suggest it at WP:BEFORE. IMHO, since a WikiProject is automatically notified through DELSORT/Article Alerts about AfD in their area of interest, I think this best practice is fulfilled anyway, why do we need two discussions about the article? Plus most WikiProjects are not very active anyway, sadly, so the odds are many of such discussions would be wasted (not resulting in anything since people will not see it or ignore it since there is no immediate "threat"). As for boldly redirecting it, I already explained I consider it a very bad practice (also from the perspective of it being challenged, just like next to nobody would see the stealth deletion, the same problem applies to a stealth recreation via redirecting reversal). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A wikiproject discussion is not a pre-requisite to all AfDs. It's just one option if you don't think a talk page discussion will be spotted. If you think redirecting is best but don't want to discuss redirecting and don't want to boldy redirect then you should just leave the article alone. AfD is only for articles you think should be deleted not articles you think should be redirected. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merging to List of bus routes in London is common for these discussions. There isn't anything of value to merge as route 278 already appears in the table and doesn't need anything additional to what is there now. Ajf773 (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who says it doesn't need any more info? We have essentially infinite space here. I have yet to conduct a search for additional sources for this article, it may be that more are available. NemesisAT (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We also have notability standards. Wikipedia is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Ajf773 (talk) 09:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article passes WP:GNG. That's the notability standard, and it has been met. NemesisAT (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You say it does, I say it doesn't and none of the keep votes other than yours have explicitly claimed this either. This is exactly why we have AfD's. Ajf773 (talk) 02:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And why do you say it doesn't? Note the additional sources added since your vote. NemesisAT (talk) 07:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ajf773 already linked one argument you should read, I'll add Wikipedia:ITSHARMLESS . _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yet another drive-by violation of WP:NOTCLEANUP. Hold on tight please, ting, ting! Andrew🐉(talk) 10:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NOTCLEANUP indeed, there is nothing useful here, just a catalog-entry for an insignificant entity. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that then you should be recommending redirecting it to the "catalogue" (List of bus routes in London) rather than deleting it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the additional sources provided mean this now passes WP:GNG. Also, how exactly do you define "useful"? WP:ITSUSEFUL NemesisAT (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Thryduulf - not notable in itself. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My opinion: this is yet one more attempt by a small cabal of editors to rid Wikipedia of bus-related articles simply because they WP:IDL them. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- AlgaeGraphix, Who is in that cabal? I'd like to meet them, as I don't recall ever commenting on a similar article, but now you tell me there are kindred spirits out there I should network with. By all means, please introduce us. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  There is no "cabal" as (at least in my mind) that implies organisation but I don't see any evidence of that. What I have observed over many years though is a small number of editors with an apparent desire to eliminate all bus content from Wikipedia (this might not be the desire of any one editor, but it is the impact of their collective desires). Individual bus routes get trimmed down to bare bones and then deleted, merged or redirected. The same then happens to the merged articles, then the lists get nominated for deletion on NOTDIRECTORY grounds. The lack of improvement to articles is nearly always cited, but improvements don't stick because "trivia" and "routine" even when the editors interested have not been driven away from the project by seeing their work repeatedly nominated for deletion and referred to as "trivia", "rubbish" and similar. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was the impression I got from some responses at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 123 and other places. Folk use "route changes are routine" (they are anything but routine!) to suggest bus routes shouldn't be listed despite there being adequate sources in the article. Bear in mind though that London Buses route 167 survived a deletion discussion, so there certainly isn't a community consensus to delete all bus articles. NemesisAT (talk) 08:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly see that some bus lines (routes, whatever) are notable, having received significant coverage due to their economic or tourist importance or whatever. Not all do, however (likely 0.1% of existing bus lines in the world are notable, if not fewer), and this one IMHO doesn't make the cut. That something exists doesn't always make it encyclopedic (notable). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When some members of a set are notable then all members of the set are plausible search terms and so should be, at minimum, redirects to the appropriate article about the set or list of members of the set. Any articles created about members of the set that are not notable should be merged and redirected to the most appropriate broader article. Deletion is not appropriate and so neither are AfD nominations. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you feel buses must have coverage on their economic impact, or tourist importance, for inclusion in Wikipedia. Simply passing WP:GNG ought to be enough, which this article now does with multiple newspaper sources and a book source. NemesisAT (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being one of the newest bus routes in London, there is practically nothing notable about this route whatsoeover. Article is plagued with references to londonbusroutes.net and londonbusroutes.co.uk, which are deprecated self-published fansites and not considered reliable. Rest of the sources are run-of-the-mill mentions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why deletion rather than redirection? Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Either way if it gets deleted, a redirect will follow. Ajf773 (talk) 09:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the article and its additional sources added since your comment, and reconsider. I have also reduced reliance on londonbusroutes.net/.co.uk and will see if I can remove it alltogether. Thanks NemesisAT (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Surprisingly, there is some significant coverage of the old 278 bus:

Brazier, Hugh; McCann, Jan (2014-11-13). The Book of 365: All the Numbers, None of the Maths. Random House. p. 278. ISBN 978-1-4481-9256-4.

It is plausible that additional coverage could be cobbled together to meet GNG, but I am currently still leaning the redirect route like for the rest of the bus articles. Jumpytoo Talk 19:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interestng find, but is the source reliable? It seems like a novel/essay, or rather, a book of trivia, where the author has one page for each number up to 365, and under 278 summarizes few facts about this bus. I am not convinced such a source can establish notability.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's published by an reputable publisher, so I would argue it is reliable. Though, I still believe redirection is the best route, as the notability is tied to the old 278, and the current iteration doesn't have much in terms of coverage. Jumpytoo Talk 02:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Can we combine two routes (the old 278 and the current one) under the one header to create an article, if either route on its own wouldn't qualify for one? As losing information on both would be a shame. NemesisAT (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some bus articles have survived AfD, like London Buses route 167. At the moment, some remain as articles while others have been redirected to the list. NemesisAT (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for reasons given by others. Toviemaix (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has been improved significantly since the nomination, so I think it now passes WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It has been shortened ([1] vs [2]). I am not sure how this improves notability. Can you elaborate? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have added several sources. I'm not sure why it has been shortened though, I need to take a closer look. NemesisAT (talk) 07:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.