Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 73

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 speedy keep. Withdrawn nomination with no outstanding delete !votes. Tim Song (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 73

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

There are adequate references to demonstrate that this bus route exists, and the information in the article is well-sourced in places (though with much unreferenced material), but there is no evidence that it meets the notability test of WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Some of the material in the article could be incorporated in an expanded List of bus routes in London, so a merger may be appropriate.

I initially PRODded this article, but the PROD was contested with a note in the edit summary that "this one is and can definatley be made notable. Infmaous for its Routemaster/bendy bus conversion". There was lots of coverage of the bendy buses, but I have yet to see any evidence that much of that coverage was focused on the routes. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I quite agree that most bus route articles are non-notable, but that "Infamous for its Routemaster/bendy bus conversion" was right on the mark in this case, even though the article at present isn't particularly good quality. The 73 bus runs through areas characterised by narrow twisting streets, but was chosen as the first major route to be added to the ill-fated bendy bus experiment. Transport for London was hauled in front of the Advertising Standards Agency (and lost) for misleading claims made in relation to this (see [1] for example); coverage specifically relating to the 73 bus route rather than the bus type in general. In addition, I'd argue that as the busiest bus route in London and the key bus route connecting North London to the centre and West End and thus the one that gets the most attention from TfL, it's a significant enough route to warrant separate treatment in its own right; as well as the aforementioned bendy buses, it was the first bus route fitted with GPS, the test route for automated announcements, the route used for population dip-sampling surveys… – iride scent 21:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. IMO, the refs provided by Iridescent meet comfortably meet WP:GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep for now, there is already ongoing discussion on this elsewhere. Jeni ^(talk) 22:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on its own merits. All established bus routes are major features of the local geography, and if an article can be written, it should be; whether they are better merged is a question of style. The information is encyclopedic. . If people look at these articles and decide that they want to keep them, that makes a practical policy of exception to the GNG.There are other ways of showing notability, and it is in fact contrary to the current WP:N guideline to say the the GNG is the only way. Personally, I think trying to remove establish borderline articles is a very poor use of time here, when there are so many important things like unsourced BLPs to attend to, DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Disruptive deletion spree made without due diligence per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 74. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF, please. I did indeed follow WP:BEFORE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:33, 30 March 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.