Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 328

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 no consensus. SpinningSpark 16:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 328[edit]

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

Non notable bus route. Of the eight refs, three are to do with the last operator and have no use within this article. Nordic Nightfury 12:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 12:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 12:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not in the slightest bit notable. It's only "notable incidents" bare little relationship to the route itself. I strongly disagree with anyone who thinks that someone being hit by a bus is notable (though, sympathy to the person who was hit). Jeni ^(talk) 14:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But being shot by a nail gun is not an everyday occurrence, is it?

Notability is not inherited from incidents on a route. It depends on secondary coverage of the route in itself.Charles (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources like the Evening Standard and Daily Telegraph seem fine. Previous operators are relevant because notability does not expire. Andrew D. (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Strongly agree with Andrew Davidson. The route also has notability as it was the first route (I believe) to receive Hybrid Double deckers in London. Class455 (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PRODUCT. Goods and services should be covered at the providers' pages. Not notable in itself.Charles (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the next portion of your selective quote from WP:PRODUCT says "unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy." Needless to say having all of the London bus articles on one page would be unwieldy. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Most of what is in the articles is from self-published sources or primary sources. The history of significant routes could easily be condensed into the main article.Charles (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an interesting prospect; it would require some collaboration, but it seems possible, and certainly would stop the problem where every so often a few bus articles are nominated for deletion and the same arguments come up again and again. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient coverage in the sources to pass WP:GNG. While Jcc has in my view already successfully refuted the WP:Product argument, just to add a bus route is not just a "product" but among other things an element of public infrastructure. It would be as senseless to delete a bus route for being a product as it would be to destroy or merge a motorway article just beacause it happened to be toll road. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Motorways are major engineering structures which are of course notable. Bus routes are little more than lines on a map that often change over time. There is no reason for every run-of-the-mill route to need an article. WP:NOTTRAVEL has a bearing on this.Charles (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable bus route, A mention on List of London bus routes would be more than sufficent, Anyway fails GNG, –Davey2010^Talk 20:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bus routes are significant, permanent parts of cities, which tend to be consistent. Above as part of an arguement for deletion it is mentioned that the content could be placed into List of London bus routes, however, that page currently contains a table of bus routes, which whilst sufficient for truly insignificant bus routes, would not offer sufficient coverage of the more important bus routes. London bus routes are well discussed in a variety of books; and normally individual bus routes are discussed in local papers etc. when there are major changes as can be seen in this article. There is a small trickle of bus routes nominated for deletion every-so-often; the main argument of those voting delete are similar every time, thus there should be a large scale deletion nomination articles of such bus articles where there is actually significant community input as opposed to the same editors popping up every time. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:25, 4 November 2016 (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.