Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of night buses in London (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. There is clearly no consensus to delete this article, even taking into account some of the slightly weak arguments presented for keeping it. Moving or merging the content is, of course, an editorial issue and not one for AfD. Black Kite (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of night buses in London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

These routes are discussed at Buses in London and listed at List of bus routes in London. This article is redundant and basically just fancruft. I am not finding significant third party secondary sources that cover this set of routes apart from the day routes, thus fails WP:N. Also fails WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Charles (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - We don't need a duplicate article - One will suffice and that's basically at List of bus routes in London#Night only routes (N-prefixed), Shame we can't get rid of List of bus routes in London too. both articles altogether. –Davey2010^Talk 01:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you want this deleted because it's a duplicate of an article you don't think should exist? Strange logic. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I trying to say was I don't think either should exist..... –Davey2010^Talk 14:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep London's public transport is much reduced at night with the Tube network closing for maintenance, so the night bus service is of particular interest. The topic is notable on account of the length of time these services have been running (over a century), there has been a book written on this specific subject London's Night Buses, and there is much more coverage in the extensive works on London's bus services past and present. I'd like to see further work done on the history of these individual routes and there is scope for other improvement, but there are a lot of facts gathered here in an accessible way that would be of particular relevance to someone with both a cursory and keen interest in the subject.Poltair (talk) 07:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if a single book is enough to meet the significant secondary coverage requirement of WP:GNG for a stand alone article. Better to expand the existing coverage at Buses in London which is currently unsourced. We do not need a content fork list showing every stop contrary to WP:NOT.Charles (talk) 08:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I concur! That's why there are undoubtedly schedules printed and online by the local transportation authority. That's their job, not Wikipedia's! Tapered (talk) 04:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki: "a website or database developed collaboratively by a community of users, allowing any user to add and edit content." There's nothing wrong with providing this useful list of information, and it is more convenient for people to search for a list of nightbuses rather than trying to spot out nightbus routes on the list of bus routes article. Deleting this article is just an unnecessary inconvenience. 92.24.203.143 (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This community of users has chosen not to provide a directory or guide, so there is everything wrong with it on this wiki.Charles (talk) 08:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per User:Poltair's argument. --92slim (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You might want to read WP:PERNOM..... –Davey2010^Talk 22:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete None of the references are secondary sources concerning themselves with this list. Violates WP:GNG. Don't let the door hit this article on its way out. Tapered (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The main list of bus routes in London is over 100K and so, per WP:SIZE, it is reasonable to split off a portion such as this. The subdivision has independent notability per WP:LISTN as there are substantial sources such as London's Night Buses, The Night Bus and London's worst bus routes at night. Andrew D. (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These routes are included in List of bus routes in London, not split off. The sources given should be used to improve prose content at Buses in London instead of to justify a pointless duplicate article. If the article is kept it will have to be cut down to a basic list without all the cruft anyway.Charles (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per Poltair & Andrew D reasoning, although could do with more cites, will attempt to add before end of nomination period. Looloo18 (talk) 03:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  Done N1-N9 copyedited, will wait for resolution on this discussion before proceeding. Looloo18 (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I predict that the majority of "Keeps" with no rational refutation of the "Deletes" will be accepted as "concensus," and this turkey will continue to soil Wikipedia in the same way that turkeys not in their natural environment or in a barnyard would soil a pristine golf course. Tapered (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:*Comment Many thanks for the pearls of wisdom Nostradamus Busgb (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It depends if the closing admin has the balls to apply Wikipedia policy and disregard the WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:INTERESTING !votes.Charles (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep prose section now added, if consensus is to retain, suggest article be renamed London Night Bus network or similar. Busgb (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Move the prose to Buses in London and delete this unencyclopedic and duplicate list.Charles (talk) 10:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur with Charles. Tapered (talk) 03:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep In light of efforts to improve since AfD nomination through addition of prose and more appropriate cites (kudos to those involved), a keep. Astbam (talk) 06:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The prose is mostly written from primary sources, the transport authority and bus company websites, which rapidly change and are not stable sources. Secondary sources are needed to meet WP:GNG.Charles (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not to mention that whatever improvements are made, it will still violate WP:NOTGUIDE. Tapered (talk) 07:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep While the article does draw on primary citations, notably from Transport for London, given that it is the organisation that oversees the service does stand to reason there will be some. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD states primary sources can be used, but should be done so with caution. By and large in this article they are used to verify basic facts, such as where routes operate from/to, with much of the other information backed up by secondary cites from trade press, national newspaper and printed sources.

By comparison the List of bus routes in London#Night only routes (N-prefixed) article which it has been suggested this article is a duplicate of, is just a list with zero cites. While the article may have been in violation of WP:NOTGUIDE, as it has evolved to have more of a history focus, probably no longer applicable. Castroex (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The history can and should be covered at the Buses in London article instead of being a lame excuse for keeping an unencyclopedic list.Charles (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Update I popped into the London Transport Museum to check the sources and was most impressed by Phillip Wallis's work which is very substantial - two volumes and hundreds of pages. It has a historical focus, going back to 1903 and so WP:NOTGUIDE is irrelevant as we have a rich history to cover besides the current service. Deletion still makes no sense and so my !vote is unchanged. Andrew D. (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This fails to explain why the history of night routes cannot be covered at Buses in London instead of tacking it onto a list of routes. Wikipedia is not intended to go into levels of trivial detail that will be of interest to only a few enthusiasts.Charles (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: Wikipedia is not a travel guide; however until List of bus routes in London is made less for travel purposes by removing all the intricate detail that would belong on a travel guide, making it long; it is a plausible split article and notable subject; also of considerable reader interest (~2,500 / month). Until its parent article is compressed, this should stay. Esquivalience ^t 16:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of one article is not normally determined by the state of related articles. AfD is not cleanup.Charles (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is not cleanup is an argument to keep, not to delete an article. Notability is not the same as inclusion. There are different standards for list and split articles, and split articles are determined by the state of its parent article. How is merely keeping an article cleanup? Esquivalience ^t 18:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DINC is just an essay. Which policy says there are different standards for parent and split articles?Charles (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but move to Night buses in London. The amount of coverage seems to be enough for a separate article rather than cutting it down to fit in another article but the list can be reduced in size (and maybe removed completely, replaced with a link to the relevant section of the main list) - infoboxes and full routes are excessive detail, and much of the prose for individual routes lacks sources. Peter James (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Requires work, but Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another essay. The house that needs to be worked on is Buses in London, not this redundant content fork.Charles (talk) 08:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Although I am not a very active editor on the English Wikipedia, I hope it's ok if I answer too. In my opinion this list isn't redundant to List of bus routes in London, because this page explains more about each night bus line (good example: line N11) than the other list does and could do. I'd say keep --Metrophil44 (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2015 (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.