Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 176

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 Keep. Consensus was for Keep. (non-admin closure) Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 15:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 176

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

Appears to be a run of the mill bus route, with no significant sources added to prove prominence. No real claims to fame for this one... Nightfury 08:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 08:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 08:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 08:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing special about this one Jeni ^(talk) 13:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as User:DGG said, generally speaking bus routes are significant, permanent parts of cities, which tend to be consistent and not often changed. London bus routes are well discussed in a variety of books; and normally individual bus routes are discussed in local papers etc. when there are major changes as can be seen in the revision of the article I have linked to. This particular bus route has been around since 1951, and here's an ITV news source, for example (and I'm sure User:Andrew Davidson will know of more).

As an additional note, this trickle of nominations of bus routes is annoying; at the last AfD, Nightfury was advised to start a discussion on the notability of these bus routes at the active Wikiproject: Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport. I see no evidence that they have done so; instead they seem to be continuing with this piecemeal nomination of bus routes for deletion. jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. asI have said at other such AfDs. I do not know the procedure in London, but in NYC the procedure for changing a bus route is a major decision, and generally gets significantly wide local coverage. Almost all of them have been stable for many decades now. (stable to the extent that there's now a significant issue whether the pattern is completely obsolete in view of the wider distribution of work locations. And doing one at a time without a general discussion is going to result in a totally erratic result. DGG ( talk ) 15:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per jcc. XOR'easter (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Having lived in London, I know 176 is one of the major ones which includes roads such as Charing Cross Road, Waterloo Road and Strand. --Oakshade (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of bus routes in London, for now (as has happened to dozens of other routes' articles over time). Whether or not this bus route is notable there are no sufficient sources as the article stands to validate this. Ajf773 (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per jcc; do an RfC on merging these somewhere other than AfD. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not this again......Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 15:47, 9 January 2018 (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.