London Buses route 969: Number of ref's have issues, [2] being a blog and [4] basically just being blatant trivia, whilst [6] may as well fail WP:NOTTIMETABLE because it operates so infrequently.  Suggest merging to List of bus routes in London but willing to gain consensus first.  Mattdaviesfsic ( talk ) 21:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom .  Mattdaviesfsic ( talk ) 21:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep bizarre rationale, how can [ https://www.mylondon.news/news/west-london-news/i-went-london-bus-only-21029223 this newspaper article fail WP:NOTTIMETABLE ? NOTTIMETABLE redirects to an essay called Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations) so isn't applicable to a bus route. The article is WP:SIGCOV with the author having ridden the route in question and reported on it. Ideal source that establishes notability for this bus route. Garuda3 ( talk ) 22:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of bus routes in London .  Sources are totally trivial mentions ... being a bus route that operates only twice a week and the only London Buses route number in the 900s, is not significant coverage.  There is nothing notable about this route for it to have its own article.  Ajf773 ( talk ) 02:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That a newspaper article has been written about this route is very much significant coverage.  Garuda3 ( talk ) 07:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] MyLondon News is not what I would describe as significant coverage.  Ajf773 ( talk ) 11:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It’s an established newspaper with a named journalist who went and rode the route.  How is it not significant coverage?  Garuda3 ( talk ) 14:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article for MyLondon doesn't give me a lot of confidence that it is a well established newspaper, is it even in printed form?  The depth of coverage is more the issue here, as its target audience appears to be localised to the city of London, with a big focus on general interest stories.  Most notable bus routes have independent sources with a far greater depth of coverage, (i.e nationwide or international coverage / multiple ones too).  The claim of notability rests solely on this single source.  Coincidentally the same media source AND same named author has been used for soucing in other discussions: route 718 and 278 .  Ajf773 ( talk ) 10:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] “localised to the city of London” indeed, a city with five million residents.  Thus this isn’t a hyper-local publication but instead one of interest to millions of people.  There is no requirement for notable topics to have national coverage.  Unsure how those other discussions are relevant here.  Garuda3 ( talk ) 09:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you look at the article for MyLondon you’ll see it was created by the merger of two established newspapers.  Garuda3 ( talk ) 09:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  There should be content somewhere about mobility buses in London, which are clearly a notable aspect of buses in London, and their history into which this should be merged, but I can't immediately find such so I suggest repurposing this article to be the basis of that.  Thryduulf ( talk ) 09:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thryduulf - would it be better to use some of the references from this article and copy them into a draft - perhaps Draft:Mobility buses in London ?  Not opposed to the idea though, if a number of reliable sources can be found for such a topic.  Mattdaviesfsic ( talk ) 11:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am happy with this as long as the article is created in main space and not draft.  Drafts may end up forgotten about and deleted six months later.  Garuda3 ( talk ) 14:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] People have already made comments about you creating pages directly in mainspace, often with few or no sources.  That's not an accusation, it's a fact.  If you, perhaps a few others, work on it in draftspace first, that would be much better.  Content which is deleted after 6 months can still be retrieved, don't forget.  Mattdaviesfsic ( talk ) 14:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (Not that it should take 6 months, of course.) Mattdaviesfsic ( talk ) 14:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Are you talking about the comments Trainsandotherthings left on my talk page?  If so, they retracted the message as it turned out an IP editor had vandalised the article since I created it and removed the sources.  Content is much more likely to be viewed, edited, and improved when it is in mainspace.  Garuda3 ( talk ) 15:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, the message I left was a mistake, and I apologize to Garuda3 for not doing due diligence and realizing it was not them who had left the article in a state with zero references.  I'm concerned some of your articles don't meet GNG, but I've never seen you make something with zero references.  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 02:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Seems to barely pass WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV .  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 23:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  Added a FOI report about the route (perhaps unsurprisingly) being 'least dangerous' in London.  Helps a little with notability.  Just pushes the route over GNG acceptance in my view, (probably helps more in defeating the nominator's claim for deletion on grounds of WP:NOTTIMETABLE).  Rupples ( talk ) 05:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of bus routes in London .  // Timothy :: talk 11:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of bus routes in London per Timothy.  CastJared ( talk ) 15:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge (selectively) to List of bus routes in London .  There is a story here, there are references, there is an WP:ATD target badly in need of additional references, there even is a notes field at the target that has not not been expanded or used for this particular bus.  On the other hand, only one reference counts toward notability and the least frequent route is a bit of a double edged sword: it adds interest, not importance.  I respectfully call upon all other contributors to support this constructive compromise as all above have made good points in their statements.  Please note below if you could live with a merge.  Pinging: Mattdaviesfsic , Garuda3 , Ajf773 , Thryduulf , Trainsandotherthings , QuicoleJR , Rupples , Timothy , CastJared .  gidonb ( talk ) 13:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But however, List of bus routes in Bangkok is WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTDIR .  CastJared ( talk ) 14:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That has been argued, but it is not the consensus position and even if it was it wouldn't be relevant as the London list has consensus to exist and this route is not in Singapore.  Awkward42 ( talk ) [the alternate account of Thryduulf ( talk )] 14:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Support merge per Gideonb and my comments further up.  Awkward42 ( talk ) [the alternate account of Thryduulf ( talk )] 14:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unfortunately I can’t support merging as I have in the past tried to add detail to that list article only for it to be deleted.  Due to its large size, it makes sense to split content off, rather than merge it in.  Garuda3 ( talk ) 09:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is nothing that needs merging to List of bus routes in London .  The list of bus routes contains standard information about each route, including this one.  There is no place for undue extra information.  However I am ok if anyone wants to merge content to an article or section relating to Mobility Buses in London.  Ajf773 ( talk ) 09:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is no place for undue extra information.  yes there is, this article.  Garuda3 ( talk ) 09:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not undue.  In the unused notes field, it can be mentioned with the use of the references that this is the lowest frequency line.  Plus, instead of the highest number (trivial and in the list understood in context), mention that this is the last remaining of what was a larger group of service lines.  It would clarify why a bus that rides only twice a week has a unique hundreds prefix.  If that already becomes too much just update the text above.  In any case that would be wise to do.  gidonb ( talk ) 22:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Between arguments to Keep, Redirect or Merge, I'm not seeing a consensus here except that the page content shouldn't be permanently deleted.  Hopefully, a few more days will see opinion coalesce around one option.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Support merge per gidonb.  MyLondon is questionable for establishing notability per WP:AUD .  Ascelyn ( talk ) 00:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:AUD is part of the notability for organisations and so doesn’t apply here.  Garuda3 ( talk ) 01:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Right, striking as not applicable.  Ascelyn ( talk ) 02:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  The best suggestion is the repurposing of the article under the title of "Mobility Buses in London" or such like, as put foward by Thryduulf .  This would allow for the development of a more comprehensive article of encyclopedic merit.  I can't envisage the article under its current narrowly focused heading, amounting to much more than the content already included.  The only likely additional material will be on the route's closure.  The suggestion is dependent, of course, on sourcing being located for the wider topic.  (An article in The Times from 1992 states there are 80 Mobility routes in existence but regular services have no wheelchair access.)  Rupples ( talk ) 03:46, 3 May 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: redirect