Talk:LocalLink 94 (BaltimoreLink)

Violent incident

Does the long description of the attack by the youths really belong on this page? If it's noteworty, it ought to have its own article; it certainly isn't the most important thing about this bus route. The info at the end about similar incidents on entirely separate bus routes make its presence here particulalry hard to defend. --Jfruh (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It was in its own article at first, titled Baltimore bus beating. The article was deleted after an AFD discussion (I had proposed it for deletion following the suggestion of another), and the decision was to merge the contents into this article.Sebwite (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It just seems like the amount of information on this subject is all out of proportion to the subject of this article, which is 27 bus route in Baltimore. If you came here, you might be given the impression that it was the most important thing about this bus line, which it honestly isn't. --Jfruh (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I may make some changes in the writing style to this section that will de-emphasize the importance. I will have to review it. There are many other MTA-related articles that I am working on updating, and this is one of them, but I am doing them in a certain order, and it may take me some time before I reach this one.Sebwite (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The bus beating is far more notable than the route itself. The beating received nationwide attention, while "route 27" never has. 71.112.130.129 (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It is true the violent incident received nationwide attention. It received coverage for several months, and in itself is a notable incident. But the route itself, along with its predecessors, are over a century old, and there is a long history of numerous changes that led up to the current route. There have been books written and other information describing buses and streetcars covering the route. That, too, is notable. Sebwite (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

the decision was to merge the contents into this article.

No, actually the AFD decision was clearly delete, period. I'm removing it on that and on undue weight basis. --Calton | Talk 15:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of this section, and I have re-added it. It is properly sourced, and what was discussed during these AfDs was not that this shouldn't be included in Wikipedia, period, but that it should not be included in a standalone article. Besides, this article has plenty of other information dating back over a century, so this is not a case of undue weight. Sebwite (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)