31:
530:. 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
580:
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
400:
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
605:
I have added some citations to reliable sources. There are many more such sources available covering other periods in the route's long history and these testify to the route's notability. The comments above, which were based upon the unsourced state of the article, are thus obsolete.
401:
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.--
245:. 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.
576:
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
184:
553:
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.
471:
Lots of coverage showing up, but nothing significant except in unreliable sources. I'm disappointed as the route seems to have some history behind it, but it doesn't seem close to meeting
625:- Sources appear to be little more than name drops and directory listings. These do not establish notability any more than my surname appearing in a telephone directory makes me notable.
284:
178:
139:
364:
317:
223:
40:
144:
112:
107:
116:
99:
382:
347:
302:
268:
320:. These AfD's certianly don't help the process users are currently going through to determine which articles are notable and which aren't.
17:
694:
581:
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.
199:
595:
London buses are used by many thousands of people; their routes have been around for many generations and so there is much history.
509:
all information contained in this article is verifiable. The majority of London bus routes are notable, and the system is notable.
241:
PROD also contested a series of PRODs for West
Midlands bus routes for which there was no evidence of notability, such as this one
166:
331:
There is no discussion there of individual bus routes, other than a few comments such as the wholly unjustified praise for
676:
160:
65:
46:
661:
640:
615:
590:
562:
543:
518:
501:
484:
463:
448:
431:
410:
387:
352:
326:
307:
273:
81:
103:
156:
378:
343:
298:
264:
78:
675:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
611:
64:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
256:
rather than the repeated cycle of procedural objections which have disrupted other similar AFDs? Thank you.
206:
558:
539:
332:
231:
492:. Article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable third party sources - name drops only.
406:
95:
87:
480:
371:
336:
291:
257:
607:
192:
172:
586:
514:
497:
460:
554:
535:
444:
58:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
418:
Being a trivial thing that exists in a directory does not justify a stand alone article. See
215:
Non-notable bus-route, with neither a claim to notability nor any evidence of notability per
657:
427:
402:
472:
419:
397:
253:
216:
476:
222:
I PRODded it, but the PROD was contested on the grounds of a pre-existing discussion at
633:
688:
582:
510:
493:
457:
531:
527:
440:
133:
226:. However, the assessments in that discussion seem pretty shoddy. For example,
653:
423:
626:
321:
318:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject London
Transport#London bus route articles
248:
If editors want to keep this article, please can can we have some actual
439:
or redirect. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources.--
526:!!!! Because anyone who wants to keep this article is the same as
316:
for now, there is already ongoing discussion on this elsewhere, at
669:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
25:
396:. Oops, missed this one. Essentially per BrownHairedGirl.
242:
227:
129:
125:
121:
191:
285:
205:
224:Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject London Transport
68:). No further edits should be made to this page.
679:). No further edits should be made to this page.
234:, but I see no evidence there of notability.
8:
365:list of England-related deletion discussions
359:
279:
363:: This debate has been included in the
283:: This debate has been included in the
45:For an explanation of the process, see
551:Disclaimer (as per talk page request)
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
29:
47:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
41:deletion review on 2010 April 7
1:
711:
464:01:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
449:00:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
432:05:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
411:04:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
388:00:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
353:00:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
327:00:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
308:00:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
274:00:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
662:11:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
641:06:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
616:08:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
591:04:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
563:15:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
544:12:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
519:04:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
502:13:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
485:13:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
456:per nom and Mkativerata.
82:13:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
695:Pages at deletion review
672:Please do not modify it.
534:, but at heart the same.
61:Please do not modify it.
524:EXTREMELY STRONG DELETE
237:The editor who removed
333:London Buses route 187
232:London Buses route 187
652:to a list of routes.
96:London Buses route 80
88:London Buses route 80
469:Weak delete/redirect
252:of notability per
73:The result was
390:
386:
368:
351:
310:
306:
288:
272:
53:
52:
39:was subject to a
702:
674:
631:
377:
374:
369:
342:
339:
324:
297:
294:
289:
263:
260:
210:
209:
195:
147:
137:
119:
63:
33:
32:
26:
710:
709:
705:
704:
703:
701:
700:
699:
685:
684:
683:
677:deletion review
670:
637:
627:
420:not a directory
372:
337:
322:
314:Procedural keep
292:
258:
152:
143:
110:
94:
91:
79:Scott Mac (Doc)
66:deletion review
59:
37:This discussion
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
708:
706:
698:
697:
687:
686:
682:
681:
665:
664:
643:
635:
619:
618:
608:Colonel Warden
599:
598:
597:
596:
578:
573:
572:
566:
565:
547:
546:
521:
504:
487:
466:
451:
434:
413:
391:
357:
356:
355:
311:
213:
212:
149:
145:AfD statistics
90:
85:
71:
70:
54:
51:
50:
44:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
707:
696:
693:
692:
690:
680:
678:
673:
667:
666:
663:
659:
655:
651:
647:
644:
642:
639:
638:
632:
630:
624:
621:
620:
617:
613:
609:
604:
601:
600:
594:
593:
592:
588:
584:
579:
575:
574:
571:
568:
567:
564:
560:
556:
552:
549:
548:
545:
541:
537:
533:
529:
525:
522:
520:
516:
512:
508:
505:
503:
499:
495:
491:
488:
486:
482:
478:
474:
470:
467:
465:
462:
459:
455:
452:
450:
446:
442:
438:
435:
433:
429:
425:
421:
417:
414:
412:
408:
404:
399:
395:
392:
389:
384:
380:
376:
366:
362:
358:
354:
349:
345:
341:
334:
330:
329:
328:
325:
319:
315:
312:
309:
304:
300:
296:
286:
282:
278:
277:
276:
275:
270:
266:
262:
255:
251:
246:
244:
240:
235:
233:
229:
225:
220:
218:
208:
204:
201:
198:
194:
190:
186:
183:
180:
177:
174:
171:
168:
165:
162:
158:
155:
154:Find sources:
150:
146:
141:
135:
131:
127:
123:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
97:
93:
92:
89:
86:
84:
83:
80:
76:
69:
67:
62:
56:
55:
48:
42:
38:
35:
28:
27:
19:
671:
668:
649:
645:
634:
628:
622:
602:
569:
555:Steve Dufour
550:
536:Steve Dufour
532:London Blitz
528:Adolf Hitler
523:
506:
489:
468:
453:
436:
415:
393:
360:
313:
280:
249:
247:
238:
236:
228:this comment
221:
214:
202:
196:
188:
181:
175:
169:
163:
153:
74:
72:
60:
57:
36:
403:Mkativerata
179:free images
477:Alzarian16
375:HairedGirl
340:HairedGirl
295:HairedGirl
261:HairedGirl
689:Category
650:redirect
583:Dew Kane
570:Comments
511:Dew Kane
494:Karanacs
383:contribs
348:contribs
303:contribs
269:contribs
250:evidence
230:praises
140:View log
441:Crossmr
185:WP refs
173:scholar
113:protect
108:history
654:Stifle
646:Delete
623:Delete
490:Delete
473:WP:GNG
454:Delete
437:delete
424:Edison
416:Delete
394:Delete
379:(talk)
344:(talk)
299:(talk)
265:(talk)
254:WP:GNG
217:WP:GNG
157:Google
117:delete
75:delete
648:, or
373:Brown
338:Brown
293:Brown
259:Brown
200:JSTOR
161:books
134:views
126:watch
122:links
16:<
658:talk
629:Reyk
612:talk
603:Keep
587:talk
559:talk
540:talk
515:talk
507:Keep
498:talk
481:talk
461:lute
458:Reso
445:talk
428:talk
407:talk
361:Note
335:. --
323:Jeni
281:Note
243:this
239:this
193:FENS
167:news
130:logs
104:talk
100:edit
636:YO!
577:it.
398:GNG
381:• (
370:--
346:• (
301:• (
290:--
267:• (
207:TWL
142:•
138:– (
691::
660:)
614:)
589:)
561:)
542:)
517:)
500:)
483:)
475:.
447:)
430:)
422:.
409:)
367:.
287:.
219:.
187:)
132:|
128:|
124:|
120:|
115:|
111:|
106:|
102:|
77:.
43:.
656:(
610:(
585:(
557:(
538:(
513:(
496:(
479:(
443:(
426:(
405:(
385:)
350:)
305:)
271:)
211:)
203:·
197:·
189:·
182:·
176:·
170:·
164:·
159:(
151:(
148:)
136:)
98:(
49:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.