Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route ELW

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 merge to East London Line. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route ELW

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

This seems to be a non-notable former rail replacement bus service. I am unable to find anything to grant it notability. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Step 3 of the AfD process was not completed. It has been fixed. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I AfDed this using Twinkle - it's not my fault it didn't do step three. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, or at worst merge to East London Line. There are a few sources available, such as this BBC report and a London Assembly question, plus (for verification only, of course) one TfL page and a possibly unreliable fan site. It also received non-trivial coverage in Buses Magazine on at least two occassions in 2008, so there may be enough to make a decent article. If consensus is against it, it deserves a few sentences at the Tube line's page. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and there's this PDF document as well. It's part of a London Underground site which may or may not be considered reliable. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bus routes are transient in many communities (passing especially quickly into and out of existence). Maybe this is different for London, but I think this means that bus route articles must be very clear in meeting WP:GNG. Otherwise it is a violation of the policy WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I see nothing in the above comment by Alzarian16 that goes above either trival mention by a secondary source or a primary source giving route and schedule updates. Strong delete. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point about passing coverage with regards to the BBC report (although we kept London Buses route 183 on the basis of less), but what about this? Together with the Buses Magazine coverage I think there's enough. Would you be opposed to a merge should consensus be against a separate article? Alzarian16 (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with East London Line. Most of the coverage of this route is related to it replacing the East London Line, so it seems to derive its notability from the line and is probably best covered there rather than in its own article. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 08:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 5 October 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.