Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 167

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 keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 167

[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)

Yet another run of the mill bus route in London, this one almost doesn't even lie within Greater London. This article has been recently restored after being redirected three years ago and additional content and sources describes a curtailment with only local coverage. Route changes for bus routes are common. The rest of the coverage is routine bus re-tendering. Don't agree this is notable. Ajf773 (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep, and pinging @Elmidae: who reviewed this article and removed the "notability" notice. Whether or not the subject is in London or not is irrelevant to its notability. Clearly route changes aren't that common given this route has had one documented change and has been in operation for at least 35 years. The withdrawal of subsidies from the council is also not "routine", it is a significant action that impacts on many people's lives. Two notable figures, Caroline Russell and the Mayor of London have both discussed this route as has the headteacher of a notable school, Davenant Foundation School. The article itself is well-sourced over a timeframe of 30 years. There is no requirement in the General notability guideline for a subject to have national news coverage, so I don't see how "only local coverage" is relevant here. NemesisAT (talk) 11:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be neutral on this. It didn't seem a PROD or CSD candidate to me based on the existence of oodles of other articles of comparable scope and sourcing, but beyond that, this is one arcane area of notability that I'm not going to stick my nose into. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The some London bus routes that are notable have been existence for almost a century and still cover most of the their original routes (nearly all have had route changes at some point). Most are prominent routes traversing through central London, are often high frequency and can often be cited in a wider ranger of sources other than local newspapers, passing comments from local politicians and residents' groups. Ajf773 (talk) 08:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This route runs every 20 minutes, which is fairly high-frequency in comparison to most services in the UK. I think it is dishonest to call the question from Caroline Russell to the Mayor of London "passing" given it is entirely about the bus route. And as I already said, there is no requirement in the general notability guideline for coverage to be national. NemesisAT (talk) 08:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20 minutes frequencies are low for London. 10 minutes or quicker is a much more significant benchmark. Also local politicians often campaign on issues such as transport, do we keep every single bus route article where there is at least one example of a politician making reference to a specific route? Ajf773 (talk) 08:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I have no problem with keeping bus route articles provided they're sourced, as this one is. And I'm not really sure how the frequency of a service is relevant. A bus is a lifeline to non-drivers regardless of its frequency. NemesisAT (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete over the many, many, AfDs consensus is clear that if a bus route is not suitable for a stand-alone article then it should be merged and/or redirected to a broader article (even though some who nominate these articles for AfD have also tried to get rid of those lists). So there is definitely no justification for deletion here. I may come back and recommend a positive action later. Thryduulf (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This was a redirect until a week ago. Ajf773 (talk) 08:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - This bus route is suitable for a stand-alone article. Redirecting to List of bus routes in London would lose the well-sourced information in this route which certainly wouldn't be improving or maintaining Wikipedia. NemesisAT (talk) 08:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not everything is suitable for stand alone articles. That's why we have notability requirements. Alternatively, a cheap redirect (as it was) preserves some history. Ajf773 (talk) 08:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Ajf773: This was a redirect until a week ago. If anything that's more of a reason why deletion would be inappropriate here than something that supports your position. If the route is suitable for a standalone article then it should be an article, if it isn't then it should be merged or returned to a redirect. Deletion is neither required nor justifiable. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - So you can't actually make up your mind as to what should happen to this article? Keep, redirect or delete, which is it?? Delete usually results in a redirect being created in its place, as it has with other routes (such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 371 Ajf773 (talk) 11:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - To be fair, you did nominate the article for deletion, and did not mention restoring it to a redirect in your nomination. Either way, it should stay as a full article as there's plenty of sourced info here. NemesisAT (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm nominating it because it is not a notable route. Ajf773 (talk) 08:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have been clear and consistent that there is no justification for deletion. I am happy with keeping, merging or redirecting none of which involve deletion, which is why I bolded my recommednation as "don't delete" and have reiterrated that multiple times now, so you are either not reading what I've written, not understanding what I've written or intentionally mispresenting what I have written. Whichever it is is not a good look. Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which does beg the question, why does the nominator goes through the AfD process when he is seemingly happy for articles to be merged? If that is his preference, he should be going through the WP:MERGE process. 11Expo (talk) 05:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to where? I am not proposing merge to the obvious target of List of bus routes in London because there is nothing to merge. Ajf773 (talk) 08:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just because an article was only recently expanded from a redirect is no reason to delete it back. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 12:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no grace period on articles once they are created or restored from redirects. Surely you can come up with a better reason than that. Ajf773 (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: for reasons given by others.11Expo (talk) 05:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:43, 18 May 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.