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. Scott Mac (Doc) 13:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 79 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Yet another non-notable London bus-route, with neither a claim to notability nor any evidence of notability per WP:GNG. It os already included in List of bus routes in London, so there is no need for a merger.

I PRODded it, but the PROD was contested on the grounds of a pre-existing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport. However, there is no discussion there of individual bus routes, other than a few comments such as this wholly unjustified praise for London Buses route 187, an article which offers no evidence at all of the route's notability. One editor is insisting that these articles should be redirected rather than deleted, but 187 is praised as an example of a redirect which was converted back to an article. Rather than have this sort of non-notable material resurrected, a consensus here to delete will requires proper scrutiny of notability before it is overturned.

The editor who removed this PROD also contested a series of PRODs for West Midlands bus routes for which there was no evidence of notability, such as this one this. If WikiProjects don't follow accepted standards of notability, and editors block the use of lightweight deletion mechanisms such as PROD, then inevitably articles gets brought to AFD which should be deleted with less effort from the community.

If editors want to keep this article, please can can we have some actual evidence of notability per WP:GNG rather than the repeated cycle of procedural objections which have disrupted other similar AFDs? Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep for now, there is already ongoing discussion on this elsewhere, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#London bus route articles. These AfD's certianly don't help the process users are currently going through to determine which articles are notable and which aren't. Jeni ^(talk) 01:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That's exactly what you said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 187, where the route has already been discussed at the link you provide, and pronounced objection to be a particularly good example of a bus route article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  You are mass AfD'ing so many articles rather than combining them, the only sensible thing to do is copy and paste (in the same way you are copying and pasting nominations). I question if you are even looking for any sources per WP:BEFORE. Jeni ^(talk) 01:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  You offer no substantive reason to keep any of the articles, but per the evidence above you disrupt the removal of any of them. That's why they go to AFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I oppose on the basis of the existing discussion which you are trying to disrupt with these AfDs. I'd expect much better from an admin to be honest, but from past experience with you, your current actions are not surprising. Jeni ^(talk) 01:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Nonsense: there is no disruption to any existing discussion. You are simply trying procedural games to preserve articles on through non-notable topics such as this.

  Indeed, Jeni, I do remember a prev encounter with you: I still refuse to allow serially disruptive editors like you deter me from using the using the community standard procedures. Last time I encountered you you abused rollback to blindly mass-revert my edits; this time you are swamping deletion discussions with irrelevancies. Same old Jeni :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to love bringing up irrelevant articles these days! Since you are also bringing up the past, you'll find I have never abused rollback, apart from instances where I have accidently clicked it, followed by a self revert. When your edits were being reverted I was using the built in undo function to revert edits which contraviened Wikipedia policy, with edit summaries to that effect. You may wish to go back and check your facts before you throw such accusations around. Same old BHG it seems :( Jeni ^(talk) 02:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeni, I checked my facts. Now, please will you check some facts and return to the topic of this page, which is a deletion discussion. Do you have actual evidence of notability per WP:GNG? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no comments in relation to the notability of this particular article. As has been pointed out *so* many times now, I am !voting keep on the basis that a pre-existing discussion is currently in progress to determine the general notability of London bus routes, it can be presumed then that whatever comes out of said discussion will be ported to other bus routes countrywide. Your mass AfD nominations do nothing to help the situation. Please do stop asking me how particular articles meet the GNG, as you are fully aware that my comments aren't based on that. I'm getting a bit bored of hearing you now, if I'm honest. Jeni ^(talk) 02:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you well know, there is no pre-existing discussion of this bus route ... so I';m not surprised you are getting bored of repeatedly implying that there is.

But you are now making your real position clear: you don't want to have the discussion at AFD, because you want the WikiProject to able to unilaterally override the community's agreed notability guidelines, just like you wante to do with this West Midlands article. Thanks for clarifying that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are managing to link to that diff on average 3 times in each AfD now, that is pretty amusing! Any relevant reason you like to keep bringing it up? I mean, if you seriously have a problem with the particular edit I made which you keep quoting, then surely reporting me for vandalism or disruptive editing would be the way forward? But we all know there was nothing wrong with my edit, so please, please, do drop it, I get bored of broken records. Jeni ^(talk) 02:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No change of the record, Jeni: it's WP:GNG, a smash hit at AFD for years, and I'll keep on playing it.

So, once again: any evidence of notability per WP:GNG? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Oops, missed this one. Essentially per BrownHairedGirl. GNG is an important guideline and shouldn't discarded lightly. It is important for good reason. Without significant coverage in reliable sources, it is usually impossible to have an encyclopaedic article about a subject that is properly verified. These bus route articles are a case in point: they are littered with original research and for all we know could be totally inaccurate. The reason they are littered with original research is because the reliable sources aren't there. For that reason, the original research is fatal and unsalvageable.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory. No evidence this bus line satisfies WP:GNG Edison (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability. Aiken ♫ 14:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• delete or redirect. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources.--Crossmr (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Mkativerata. Resolute 01:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - no evidence of notability and a lack of reliable sources. Orderinchaos 14:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or delete Not much material here, and certainly nothing notable. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable third party sources - name drops only. Karanacs (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all information contained in this article is verifiable. The majority of London bus routes are notable, and the system is notable. Dew Kane (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact that some points on a topic may be verifiable does not make the topic notable. The fact that the system is notable as a whole does not confer notability on its individual components, and no evidence is offered either for the claim "the majority of London bus routes are notable" or that this is one of that allegedly notable majority. We need evidence of notability.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• EXTREMELY STRONG DELETE!!!! Because anyone who wants to keep this article is the same as Adolf Hitler. Why do I say that? Because he thought the British people were stupid. "A nation of shopkeepers," I think he said. Or was that Napoleon? Well, no matter. Anyway, keeping these articles on London bus routes sends the message that we think the British are too stupid to get this information to the world without the help of "an encyclopedia anyone can edit." Not as bad as the London Blitz, but at heart the same.Steve Dufour (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer (as per talk page request) Fans of the London bus system are not really Nazis. This was a joke. However, I still think bus routes are not suitable topics for WP articles since they are only of interest to potential riders.Steve Dufour (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

1.) While I still support this being kept, even if the majority say delete, it should be merged to a parent article, and the edit history retained, so in the future, someone can dig up what is already written in an old version, and improve upon it.

2.) Steve Defour's comments are extremely offensive and should not be considered in the final closing. He should possibly be blocked for them. Being of interest only to a small crowd, such as bus riders, is not a good reason NOT to include an article. I was in London in 1999 on a trip and I rode the buses there. I do not see any guideline that says an article must be deleted if it is only of interest to a small number of people. Dew Kane (talk) 04:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability not demonstrated. Details ephemeral. NebY (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn trivia with a shout out to BHG for a very thorough and thoughtful nomination. Eusebeus (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2010 (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.