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 delete and redirect to List of bus routes in London#1-100. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

London Buses route 99

London Buses route 99 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources - this not a notable topic. Steve Quinn ( talk) 23:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep - the article is being looked at as part of WP:UKBRQDRIVE. Give them a month or two to sort it, then re-consider it if nothing or very little has changed. GammaRadiator ( talk) 02:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

You do realise that I created UKBRQDRIVE back in 2009 and it's been barely active since? 99% sure a month or two won't change anything :P Jeni ^{( talk)} 10:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

By making that comment, you are technically saying that BRQDRIVE is no longer active. Therefore, it should be either deleted or should eventually reach its aim of bringing all bus route articles to an acceptable standard....somehow. Class455fan1 ( talk) 21:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Yet another non notable bus route Jeni ^{( talk)} 10:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Procedural Keep - It saddens me to see another article about a London Bus route come up for deletion, and I have just about had enough of it. Something has to be done about this. All bus routes should be notable enough for inclusion, if this was seriously "Not notable" then why is it only coming up for review several years after creation The problem is, sources on the internet are only from enthusiast sites, however some information can be found on books. The issue is that there are few bus enthusiasts which own a book on here (although I don't know this for certain). TfL barely produce any information about route history, this only being because of the fact it is only meant to show the current route etc. Apart from books, which no-one reads anymore partly due to the fact everything is now online, the only places to find information on the history of the route is on the enthusiast sites. Self-published websites and books should be allowed for this topic only, and i think I will take this to the village pump when I can to be reviewed, however, please bear in mind I have just returned from three months off this site. Also, when finding unsourced content in general on this topic, rather than removing it completely, an effort needs to be made to made to look this information up, rather than removing it completely. After all, Wikipedia is the world's leading online encyclopedia, and we editors are supposed to collaborate to improve the quality of articles, not removing content just because we can't be bothered to find a source for the information, which is what seems to be the case on some bus-related articles. Sorry for the rant, but Its about time something was said, and I'm going for procedural keep because we need to take action on all bus route articles. Either we bring them up to notability standard, by finding sources for them from websites and books, or we redirect them all to List of bus routes in London, but we should consider helping to bring all bus route articles to a certain standard to stand a chance of them staying on the encyclopedia rather than just removing content and leaving articles about bus routes vulnerable for deletion. Class455fan1 ( talk) 21:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• The problem is, there aren't any reliable sources that cover this route (this particular topic). Apparently, this route has not had a notable impact on the London scene. Also, I am not seeing any enthusiasts' webities that cover this. If these exist, then these websites might have sources that cover this - which can be added here. In any case, as it stands this is a not a notable topic, and at best we might be able to say this bus route exists. But that does not qualify this topic for inclusion on Wikipedia. Sorry... ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 05:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• I found one [ [1]] here. The sources available includes photographs and some scanned copies of timetables where the route used to run before. Class455fan1 ( talk) 09:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• That is a self-published source/fansite which we do not use for referencing. Charles ( talk) 15:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Redirect some individual bus routes are notable, therefore all individual bus routes in the same set are likely search terms and so we should direct the readers searching for the non-notable ones to the content we have - i.e. the list, which also contains useful external resources for them to continue their research if desired. Thryduulf ( talk) 02:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Redirect as per all other routes that have not demonstrated notability ( Ajf773 ( talk) 10:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)) reply
• Redirect as above. Utterly non-notable. Charles ( talk) 15:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete and redirect per above. It is worth deleting it to avoid reversions. Nordic Dragon 07:22, 27 June 2016 (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.