Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 391

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 List of bus routes in London. If this gets recreated repeatedly, this redirect may be protected. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 03:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 391 (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)

Had redirected, however an IP has decided to revert so I'm nominating for deletion.

No evidence of notability, just another run of the mill bus route. Jeni ^(talk) 11:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—fails WP:GNG because there isn't "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject" in place here. Imzadi 1979 → 13:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable(Ajf773 (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep, as the existence of this Category:Bus routes in London suggests that such routes usually have an article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @MelanieN:, On what basis do you feel the existence of a category merits a page to be kept? Where is the guideline that says "Articles that are categorised are inherently notable"? Do you care to explain how this route is notable? You claim that bus routes usually have an article, how have you come to this conclusion? It massively concerns me that an administrator isn't familiar with Wikipedia policies on Notability. Jeni ^(talk) 01:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that the existence of a category for a type of article (or the existence of many such articles) is not evidence of notability. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• My point was not that the category exists, but that it contains (if you follow the link) more than 100 pages. That suggests that most or all such bus routes have articles, probably by a formal or informal consensus at the relevant WikiProject. There are many such "have an article regardless of GNG" consensuses here, some formal (automatic articles for populated places or national-level politicians), some informal (years ago I nominated a trolley station article for deletion and found out there was a local consensus that all constructed trolley stations were regarded as worthy of articles). I got the feeling that must be the case for London bus routes. However, I now see that there are also 200 articles in the Category:Redirects from London bus routes, so apparently redirects are accepted for some routes. So I am changing my opinion to "redirect" to List of bus routes in London. --MelanieN (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm not seeing significant coverage in secondary sources and I can't find evidence that this passes WP:GNG. I am happy to change my vote if another editor can show significant coverage of this bus route in secondary sources. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't find anything which makes this particular bus route notable. Existence of a category an article fits into doesn't automatically confer notability: for example there's a category for Amateur mathematicians but that doesn't make everyone who dabbles in maths notable enough for an article, and the same principle applies here. Neiltonks (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. When some members of a class of articles with a predictable naming scheme (e.g. London bus routes) are notable then all members that class are normally going to be likely search terms. Non-notable members of the class then should redirect to the most appropriate page, in this case I see that as the list of London bus routes article which contains what information we do have about this route and offers links to other resources for the interested reader. Thryduulf (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2016 (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.