Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 371

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 delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 371[edit]

[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)

Somehow this slipped through the AfC process however there is notable about this route. Routine coverage about tender results and self published sources from bus fansites are are not independent secondary sources. Ajf773 (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Robert McClenon: What were your reasons for accepting? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Not sure how this was created, did this override what was previously here? Nightfury 09:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep London bus routes are usually notable as there is an extensive literature about them. This one is no exception as there are already plenty of sources and there's plenty more to be found including London's Buses: The Colourful Era 1985-2005; London Buses in the 1970s, 1970–1974; London Bus Liveries: A Miscellany; The London LS: The Leyland National Bus In London Service; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No they aren't, see WP:BUSOUTCOMES. Approximately 10% of them are notable because they have a long history that dates back almost a century. A route created in the 1990's and with barely any coverage other than tenders and one single incident doesn't make the cut. The route that it was carved out of (71) is also non notable. Ajf773 (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I compared this to other London bus routes, all listed, that have articles and that do not have articles. This seemed comparable to other London bus routes that have articles. I concede that I wasn't following general notability guidelines, because if I did, very few of the bus routes would survive AFD. I concede that I was treating this as a case where there is apparently either a guideline or an unpublished guideline that normally applies to London bus routes. I also noted that there is a redirect category for London bus routes, which seems to imply that someone thinks that London bus routes are worth keeping track of, and they can't be kept tracked of unless they are in the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As to overriding what was previously there, what was previously there was a redirect to the list of London bus routes, which is what is there for all London bus routes that don't have articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I know that it is very much the Wikipedia way to select a group of volunteers to whom one does not belong and dump on them for not doing enough or for making mistakes. It is very popular for non-AFC volunteers to dump on AFC. We get dumped on for not accepting things that could be fixed in article space. We get dumped on for accepting things. So sometimes a reviewer has to be be bold and decide that an article might survive AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "This seems to be comparable to other articles on London bus routes. It should probably be accepted." I answered your question before you asked it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I support the comment from Andrew Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 09:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you support a source without demonstrating that the works provide any significant notability for this individual route? Ajf773 (talk) 09:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's arguments. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 20:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the nominator indicates, there isn't actual coverage on which to build an article; it's all routine. While some routes may be notable, nothing in the sources suggests this particular one is. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- As Ajf773 points out, London bus routes are only notable a small proportion of the time. There's no such thing as inherent or automatic notability. This topic needs specific and substantial coverage, but it just hasn't got it. Reyk _YO! 10:52, 11 August 2020 (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.