Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 277

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 no consensus. Sandstein 06:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 277

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

NN bus route, only claim to fame is an isolated incident where drivers left engines on at a terminus. No other notable dealings have happened. Run of the mill. Nördic Nightfury 14:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 14:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 14:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree this one is non-notable. Nothing remarkable. Ajf773 (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the route was started in 1959 and has been featured by the TimeOut magazine editors in 2009 as a particularly scenic route, covered in London Transport books as is shown by articles references. The route also received coverage by London media organisations after some outcry as part of a public consultation (again in references). Other editors with access to more London bus scene literature may be able to help out with identifying the notability. jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable in the slightest. Jeni ^(talk) 19:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although agreedly some routes are more notable than others, this is an encyclopædia, and when some entries in a group are left out for not meeting an arbitrary threshold it leaves unexplained holes. Useddenim (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Jcc. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 22:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 22:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable bus route, Most if not all sources are just one-bit trivial mentions, better off deleted. –Davey2010^Talk 02:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG (seemingly the only relevant notability guideline here) - coverage in several reliable sources over a period of years, relating to three or four different facets of its nature and history. If this gets deleted then we have to seriously rethink how we define notability, because this comfortably meets the requirements as they're currently written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.245.192 (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 81.100.245.192. Despite how much some people seem to hate articles on bus routes, this one does meet the GNG as demonstrated above and in the references. Thryduulf (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2017 (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.