Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of night buses in London (2nd nomination)

List of night buses in London

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

These routes are discussed at Buses in London and listed at List of bus routes in London. This article is redundant and basically just fancruft. I am not finding significant third party secondary sources that cover this set of routes apart from the day routes, thus fails WP:N. Also fails WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Charles (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - We don't need a duplicate article - One will suffice and that's basically at List of bus routes in London#Night only routes (N-prefixed), Shame we can't get rid of ~~List of bus routes in London too.~~ both articles altogether. –Davey2010^Talk 01:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you want this deleted because it's a duplicate of an article you don't think should exist? Strange logic. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I trying to say was I don't think either should exist..... –Davey2010^Talk 14:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep London's public transport is much reduced at night with the Tube network closing for maintenance, so the night bus service is of particular interest. The topic is notable on account of the length of time these services have been running (over a century), there has been a book written on this specific subject London's Night Buses, and there is much more coverage in the extensive works on London's bus services past and present. I'd like to see further work done on the history of these individual routes and there is scope for other improvement, but there are a lot of facts gathered here in an accessible way that would be of particular relevance to someone with both a cursory and keen interest in the subject.Poltair (talk) 07:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if a single book is enough to meet the significant secondary coverage requirement of WP:GNG for a stand alone article. Better to expand the existing coverage at Buses in London which is currently unsourced. We do not need a content fork list showing every stop contrary to WP:NOT.Charles (talk) 08:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I concur! That's why there are undoubtedly schedules printed and online by the local transportation authority. That's their job, not Wikipedia's! Tapered (talk) 04:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per User:Poltair's argument. --92slim (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read WP:PERNOM..... –Davey2010^Talk 22:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references are secondary sources concerning themselves with this list. Violates WP:GNG. Don't let the door hit this article on its way out. Tapered (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The main list of bus routes in London is over 100K and so, per WP:SIZE, it is reasonable to split off a portion such as this. The subdivision has independent notability per WP:LISTN as there are substantial sources such as London's Night Buses, The Night Bus and London's worst bus routes at night. Andrew D. (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These routes are included in List of bus routes in London, not split off. The sources given should be used to improve prose content at Buses in London instead of to justify a pointless duplicate article. If the article is kept it will have to be cut down to a basic list without all the cruft anyway.Charles (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Poltair & Andrew D reasoning, although could do with more cites, will attempt to add before end of nomination period. Looloo18 (talk) 03:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]