Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 130

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 to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 09:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 130[edit]

Procedural nomination, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 157; not actually nom'd at that time. Same rationale, and noting that bus routes are not inherently notable.

Also nominating the following:

Dennisthe2 05:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

comment; Anyone want to take a whack at List_of_bus_routes_in_London? wtfunkymonkey 05:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, for pity's sake.... --Dennisthe2 05:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though I disagree, I lost a fight about bus routes in Toronto, therefore these should be deleted as well. Nlsanand 07:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. A lot of arguments appear to be based on a dislike of public transit. Highways, get articles, therefore so should bus routes (my opinion, not policy) and more especially train lines (yes, this is policy). If your only reason for voting delete is due to a lack of belief in the importance of public transit, your views are irrelevant to this debate. Nlsanand 22:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Get rid of this. We are not a bus schedule and this appears to be a completely arbitrary bus route. MartinDK 07:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and repeat, WP:NOT a bus schedule. Seraphimblade 08:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 09:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why aren't bus routes inherently notable? Anyway, the discussion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 1 where this was already dealt with at some length is of relevance. The bus routes often document the growth of London in a different way and help to understand periods such as the Second World War and its aftermath as they are part and a result of shifting population patterns. Regan123 09:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again, we don't seem to have any trouble with train lines. How is a bus route different? Akihabara 12:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The whole "train lines all deserve articles" is currently under challenge too. The big problem here is the same as with most of those-primary source use only, no secondary source use. Seraphimblade 20:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Railways have just been removed from WP:LOCAL I believe. Regan123 14:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Route 130 dates all the way back to 2003, apparently, but for some reason I find it hard to consider that a claim to historic notability. Guy (Help!) 13:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets content policies, or else merge the lot somewhere per WP:LOCAL. JYolkowski // talk 15:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing notable about this bus route, so delete it. Jayden54 17:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of 100+ articles. Verifiable content. Not sensibly mergable. More notable than much of Wikipedia's adolescent pop culture content, thereby increasing the breach of its appeal and the average age of its audience. Nathanian 20:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I haven't seen too many bus route articles, but these are excellent models that cover a detailed history of the routes and service. This is not a bus schedule, a directory OR a collection of indiscriminate information. Unfortunately WP:NOT is far too often abused to mean "anything I think doesn't belong on Wikipedia". It would help if relevant references to a Wikipedia criteria or guideline would be included, as WP:NOT, does NOT fly in this case. Alansohn 20:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How about WP:N (source mentions must be nontrivial and secondary?) I don't see that with any of these, just some primary sourcing. I think that's certainly relevant. Seraphimblade 20:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per Seraphimblade. Does not meet WP:N. - Aagtbdfoua 21:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Regan123. JROBBO 09:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all No secondary sources in evidence. Shimeru 09:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If we deleted every article without secondary sources listed Wikipedia would be about 1/3 of its size. Regan123 14:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment That might be an improvement. But I didn't say "no secondary sources listed," I said "no secondary sources in evidence." Different thing. Shimeru 20:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These articles do not contain any timetable information at all (why do people keep saying that they do?) These articles are really in-depth and part of London's history and infrastructure. They also survive deletion again and again. There is a reason for that. MRSC • Talk 15:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per my comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 157. --NE2 16:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No vote but I would definitely substitute a one-sentence description for the specifics of the current routing, because 1) unmaintainable and 2) inappropriate level of detail.

Peter Grey 17:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- In running OCTAWiki, I can assure you that this is not always possible. =^^= --Dennisthe2 05:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, as per my London Buses route 157 vote above. Ford MF 11:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT This has become a complicated issue. Articles on bus routes have survived 4 AfDs in the past, but there seems to be a wave of new half-complete articles causing AfDs like this to pop up again. These are:

I propose that thay all be sent to my userspace so I can improve them to the neccessary standards set out in previos AfDs. Thank you --sonicKAI 03:04, 29 December 2006 (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.