Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 7

Brighton & Hove bus route 7

[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)

Non-notable bus route, see discussion of similar recent deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6 --wooden superman 14:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no need to read previous discussions, this one is sourced and seems to be a well-traveled and well-known route. Have removed prod speedy deletion from the page (please don't do that). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "sources" are links to the council's and the company's own website. This is a purely WP:Run-of-the-mill route, nothing notable about it at all, which you might have realised had you bothered to read the previous discussion, where even the page creator admits they couldn't find decent sources. --wooden superman 15:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bus and subway route articles are very common and acceptable on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I had intended to PROD this, but slipped on WP:Twinkle and accidentally AfD'd it instead. Apologies for the mess this has left, especially as it was de-prodded before I could get this AfD deleted. --wooden superman 15:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you prod something with sources? Maybe rethink your prod abilities, as this one is well within allowed Wikipedia article topics. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OK, there are sources, but they're not "decent sources"; in other words they contribute nothing to support the idea that this bus route in notable. Athel cb (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No apparent significance beyond being a bus route in a somewhat major city. If there was a more substantial history, it'd have a stronger case for notability. Sounder Bruce 17:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge My city has a 100+ bus routes which could have similar descriptions and sources to the local transit agency – this is not something we need individual articles for and notability is not shown with independent sources. A comparison to subway routes, which have substantial permanent infrastructure, is laughable, and certain bus routes could have significant secondary coverage not shown here. Brighton & Hove (bus company) could have a section or subarticle for its routes but the individual routes don't need stand-alone articles. Reywas92^Talk 21:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brighton & Hove (bus company). The notability of bus routes depends on the sources available; some routes pass the GNG with flying colors, but most do not. Of the current sources, two are not independent of the subject, and one only has trivial mentions. My initial search does not reveal any reliable independent sources with significant coverage. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. History.buses.co.uk, which appears to be the most refered-to source, is obviously self published. The only source that is independent comes from the Brighton & Hove city council, but that alone is nowhere near enough to satisfy notability. Ajf773 (talk) 10:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the appropriate section of Brighton & Hove (bus company).-FusionSub (talk) 10:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]