Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 718

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 redirect to Bishopsford Road Bridge. Clear consensus not to retain across delete, merge and redirect, so taking the redirect option per ATD. I've picked this target for no real reason beyond it had some support, as did other options. Note that any editor is welcome to re-target this redirect should they wish to. Daniel (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 718[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)

I cannot see why this bus route is notable. Certainly not all bus routes in the great wen have an article, and I imagine that this is because bus routes are not inherently notable; as a temporary route, this one seems less notable than most. TheLongTone (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article and This one both cover the route and are published in a reliable, independent source. Many bus routes are indeed notable and have their own articles on Wikipedia. I imagine there will also be more coverage once the route is withdrawn, which will further establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, the closest to a policy regarding bus routes is at WP:DELETIONOUTCOMES, which of course is not policy. The above user only linked two mentions, both in the same source. The first one is all of 5 sentences, the second is better but on its own is not sufficient for SIGCOV. "I imagine there will be more coverage in the future" is not a valid reason keep an article that is otherwise lacking enough SIGCOV. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and we cannot keep things just because "they might be notable some time in the future". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As per other London bus articles if this is not kept, it ought to be redirected to List of bus routes in London instead of deleted. NemesisAT (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Merge, I'm not sure where is best given that we don't have an article on the bridge (which would be the obvious target) but perhaps Morden? Failing that it should redirect to the relevant section of List of bus routes in London - there is definitely no justification to flat-out delete any member of a list where some members of the list are notable enough for articles, and countless AfDs of London bus articles have endorsed this. Thryduulf (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was planning to make an article on the bridge too if I found enough sources, but I don't have the time to do so now. The information on here could be incorporated into List of bus routes in London, deleting it certainly wouldn't be beneficial to our readers! NemesisAT (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and started an article on the bridge, Bishopsford Road Bridge. NemesisAT (talk) 12:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can route 118 meet WP:GNG? If sources can be found for that route that would be the best redirect target. Otherwise would support the usual redirect to the bridge article (if it is created), and failing that to the bus routes list. Jumpytoo Talk 21:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if an article was written with the combined subjects of routes 118 and 718 then it could. I'm not sure. NemesisAT (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is essentially a temporary route to cover a curtailed section of another route. The bulk of London bus routes that do have articles have a very long history spanning many decades. This one never will. Ajf773 (talk) 09:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you not in favour of redirecting as per many other route articles? NemesisAT (talk) 09:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment by nominator. The suggested redirect option is imo better than deletion; but at least putting it thru AfD establishes a consensus.TheLongTone (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A bus route which is intended to exist only for a relatively short period of time (two years) is unlikely to be notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So why not merge it to a broader topic? Thryduulf (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a second choice I could accept a redirect to List of bus routes in London instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bishopsford Road Bridge - Line was created as the result of a notable bridge collapse. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:01, 1 December 2021 (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.