The result was Delete. The only keep that actually adressed this article, instead of all bus route articles, changed to "redirect" on closer examination of the sources available. So among the people discussing this article, and not some general principle, the consensus is clear that it should either be deleted or redirected. Anyone wanting to create redirects after the deletion is free to do so of course. Fram ( talk) 14:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Another non-notable London bus route. This one had been tagged with {{ notability}} and {{ unreferenced}} since May 2009, and a few hours ago both tags were removed in this edit which added some refs but nothing approaching evidence of notability.
Per WP:GNG, notability is established through substantial coverage in reliable sources, and there is no evidence of that for this route.
There is already a List of bus routes in London, so after deletion this title could be re-created as a redirect to the list. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply
The assessments there seem pretty shoddy. For example, this comment praises London Buses route 187, but I see no evidence there of notability. Meanwhile, Jeni contested a series of PRODs for West Midlands bus routes for which there was no evidence of notability. If WikiProjects don't follow accepted standards of notability, then editors really do not have valid grounds for complaint that community-wide forums are used to remove non-notable material. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Ref | Significant coverage? |
Reliable source? |
Independent of the subject? |
---|---|---|---|
http://www.eplates.info/230s.html | Yes | No | Maybe |
TfL Bus tender results | No | Yes | No |
First Group timetable | Maybe | Yes | No |
The result was Delete. The only keep that actually adressed this article, instead of all bus route articles, changed to "redirect" on closer examination of the sources available. So among the people discussing this article, and not some general principle, the consensus is clear that it should either be deleted or redirected. Anyone wanting to create redirects after the deletion is free to do so of course. Fram ( talk) 14:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Another non-notable London bus route. This one had been tagged with {{ notability}} and {{ unreferenced}} since May 2009, and a few hours ago both tags were removed in this edit which added some refs but nothing approaching evidence of notability.
Per WP:GNG, notability is established through substantial coverage in reliable sources, and there is no evidence of that for this route.
There is already a List of bus routes in London, so after deletion this title could be re-created as a redirect to the list. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply
The assessments there seem pretty shoddy. For example, this comment praises London Buses route 187, but I see no evidence there of notability. Meanwhile, Jeni contested a series of PRODs for West Midlands bus routes for which there was no evidence of notability. If WikiProjects don't follow accepted standards of notability, then editors really do not have valid grounds for complaint that community-wide forums are used to remove non-notable material. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Ref | Significant coverage? |
Reliable source? |
Independent of the subject? |
---|---|---|---|
http://www.eplates.info/230s.html | Yes | No | Maybe |
TfL Bus tender results | No | Yes | No |
First Group timetable | Maybe | Yes | No |