Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Manchester bus route 263

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2024 October 19.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 all with the exception of Greater Manchester bus route 135. Route 135 can be renominated separately at any time. Owen× ☎ 12:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Manchester bus route 263

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Manchester bus route 8 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus route 7 (2nd nomination), bus routes are not inherently notable, fails GNG. Bundling the following articles that are recently created with similar notability status.

Justi yaya 08:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Justi yaya 08:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but weak keep for 135? - Wasn't a fan when these articles started being created, especially with some very low-quality images, and I observed the user wasn't listening to any of my suggestions. The history related to these routes just aren't as in-depth as, say, London Buses route 1, and it feels like they've been made just to make up the numbers. Would have put in the AfD myself but was weary of upsetting the applecart.

Having given rewriting the route 135 article a good shot, though, I think if more well-sourced notability besides the use of bendy buses (bit of a rarity in NW England) can be established, consider potentially retaining the 135 article. Wouldn't be too upset if that didn't turn up anything, however. Hullian111 (talk) 09:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - appreciate it's frustrating when people create poorly sourced articles but there may be enough sourcing for some of these articles to meet WP:GNG. A reminder to article creator @TL9027 there are many bus route articles on Wikipedia so they can be notable, but we do need better sources than just timetables.

Often branded routes/airport routes are easier to write about. For example, Skyline 199 has [1] and [2]. Garuda3 (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another source on 199: [3] Garuda3 (talk) 12:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, Route 216 being similar to route 192, was a 1920-1930s tram route converted to bus operation. There will be so much to write. TL9027 (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Garuda3 I don't see how transportdesigned.com (source 1) could be useable as it looks like a blog (or a marketing/communications company). The other source does look good though, thank you for the comment :D Justi yaya 15:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The route 199 coverage is extremely WP:ROUTINE. Local newspaper coverage of a bus provider extending service to a Sunday does not establish notability. AusLondonder (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE is an essay, not policy. Per your below comment, you seem to be dismissing bus routes because you don't like this type of content. Garuda3 (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Route 216 have this:[4]. Besides, updates will be needed as these bus routes have either joined or will join the Bee Network soon. This is a system similar to TfL which may increase their Notability.TL9027 (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not adding Greater Manchester bus route 43? Since it has similar status with your nominated articles. Plus , it seems that you just want to get rid of bus route articles JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE THEM as Garuda3 says. In your logic, ALL bus route articles in Wiki should be deleted. TL9027 (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Come on now, you can't just defend your articles by linking to Google searches that link back to the nominated articles and claiming that makes them notable. Its the equivalent of, say, claiming my 57 is notable because it appears in Google. Please remain civil about it.

You are right about the 43, though, I can't say that's got as much notability as, say, the 192 - former tramway route which experienced a bus war between Stagecoach and UK North. I'll defend the 135 but that's where I draw the line, because there just isn't anything that significant for those routes to warrant their own articles. Hullian111 (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Route 216 was also a former tramway route, having similar history as the 192, also have the potential to be kept. For the 8, the past usage of bendy buses during First's era like the 135 may also make the article notable. TL9027 (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TL9027: I've not looked at many of the other articles, but a quick glance at the 216 article shows many glaring errors. Consider its History section: Cooperation should be Corporation; the Ashton services mostly didn't go from tram to motor bus but from tram to trolleybus - and the 216 was one of these; Greater Manchester buses didn't exist in the 1950s, it was not created until April 1974 - and then it was branded Greater Manchester Transport, become GM Buses in the mid-1980s. an express service, the 216x - Manchester Corporation didn't use the "X" suffix to denote an express service, but a service that was not running the full length of the route - so the 216X observed all the 216 stops as far as Edge Lane, Clayton (the Manchester/Droylsden boundary), where it turned back. The trolleybuses lived until the 1980s, services are replaced by conventional buses till now. - what nonsense, the last Manchester trolleybuses ran on 30 December 1966. The grammar is also extremely poor, it's sometimes difficult to discern the intended meaning. Ref [1] doesn't support the preceding text at all. If the others are this bad, it might be better to delete and start afresh with some decently reliable sources. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64, can you provide your sources here? TL9027 (talk) 09:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Several books about Manchester buses that I read in the 1980s and 1990s, that I no longer have (usually because they were borrowed from a public library) but from which I made copious notes. A 1960 map of Manchester Corporation Transport bus and trolleybus services that I do still have. This book. This webpage. This forum. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I think you may help adding them to the route 216 page, make it more notable. TL9027 (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Wikipedia is not a transport guide. This content is unencyclopedic. Sources presented above are routine coverage and blogs which fails to establish notability. AusLondonder (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Draftify 135 per Hullian. I'm convinced enough to see how that one develops further. Delete the rest as indeed not notable. S5A-0043^Talk 10:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greater Manchester bus routes 36 • 37 has two BBC News sources - so could well be notable. The articles are too varied to be lumped together really. Garuda3 (talk) 11:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge into new article, List of Greater Manchester bus routes. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 11:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For your suggestion, you may create an article like this or use it as a reference for creating such article. Remember you will like to specify operator(s) of each route.TL9027 (talk) 12:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was once an article with a similar name, not anymore: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Manchester. Ajf773 (talk) 09:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not the place for unencyclopedic directories of bus routes. There is an utter lack of non-routine independent coverage. The "BBC news sources" mentioned above for one of the routes are a piece that contains zero coverage of the route in question and piece about a night bus trial proposed for a couple routes that has no SIGCOV of any of them. I guess 135 could be draftified, but I don't have high hopes for it. JoelleJay (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. It appears all these articles were created quite recently outside of the AfC process to confirm they individually meet the notability requirements. And at a glance most of them certainly don't appear to be notable with currently providing sources. Open to draftifying certain articles if there is support. Ajf773 (talk) 09:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather they were draftified as an alternative to deletion, I guess Garuda3 (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2024 (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.