Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in London (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. Sandstein (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in London

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of bus routes in London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Wikipedia is not a directory. An enclyclopedia is not really the place for lists of non-notable bus routes. Based on what i've read of the last afd, which i was not involved in, the result seems to have been incorrectly decided not based on valid points but on numbers. Neon white (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the article are also up for deletion. Regardless, other stuff exists is not a valid defence of an article. Every article has to justify it's own notability. The question here is whether a list of bus routes is encylcopedic content or of any use. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. --Neon white (talk) 06:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think RHaworth's argument is a valid one and not a case of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Under that argument, the list justifies its existence on its own, as a navigational aid for other existing articles. If every article about a London bus line gets deleted, then I'd reconsider this reason. But in addition to the navigational argument, I think this is a useful list to have in an encyclopedia. "Useful" in a good way, not in the caricature of the word that is given on WP:USEFUL which uses a phonebook as an example. This information is more than a travel guide; it can be of use for students and researchers interested in urban planning and transportation, and I believe that that falls under our mission. --Itub (talk) 08:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is effectively an appendix to the main article London buses. It seems a natural and useful adjunct to that article. I agree that individual routes will not normally merit an article but this means that the list article is a economical way of providing a token reference in a well-structured way. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, but also note that many London bus route numbers have been unchanged for generations; this is thus a useful list when looking up references in literature and so on. Chrislintott (talk) 10:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. MLA (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm sorry, but I still don't understand what's encylopedic about lists of bus routes. One person wants to keep the article because "we are going to allow an article about each separate bus route", which begs the question, "Why are we going to allow an article about each separate bus route?" Someone else looks at this as a navigational aid for the bus route articles, and another sees it as an appendix to an article about the buses of London. Still, why would we have an article in an encyclopedia about ANY city's bus route? This seems to be a case of putting something on Wikipedia "just because we can". However, it's no more encyclopedic than your shopping list at the grocery store. It was a dumb idea that was accepted back in the day when Wikipedia would take anything. Mandsford (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep-I just does not know that why people hate buseus so much, they are part and parcel to our lives(Do Not mentioned that several people may be using cars-they may broke down too), so why delete them, they are also quite a useful reference for many too as they prove a definite value of research. However, giving each bus a page was unnecessary but this was not applicable to this page as the list of bus routes. Lastly, i would also like to wish that this Afd would be the last petaining such a issue.--Quek157 (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: we don't hate buses, we just don't think that Wikipedia should be a travel-guide. I mean, it's called wikiPEDIA, not... uh... wiki...lonelyplanet. Right. Epthorn (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikitravel if not there already. This is perfectly good information, but doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Obvious case of Wikipedia is not a travel guide. -Verdatum (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - some people are under the wrong impression these articles are just about contemporary information - they are not, most of the route articles contain a lot of historical information as well. If you don't think that's noteworthy you should go to a library and look up books on London Buses. MickMacNee (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only a very small number actually contain information that is historically notable, but that is a different issue, this is anout this articles notability. I cannot envisage this being useful to anyone as anything other than a travel guide. --Neon white (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As said, I've used it previously as an index for researching said historical infromation MickMacNee (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC), and I live 500 miles from London MickMacNee (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a simple, easy to use, and logical way of linking together a large number of separate entries. Page94 (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an obvious travel guide issue. Not at all encyclopedic. Keeper | 76 23:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I guess this sort of a travel guide is notable but it seems strange we will debate this, and at the same time a list of asteroids for crying out loud Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think the travel guide comparison is spurious and not very well thought out. The article might not be notable, or might even resemble 'buscruft' trivia to some people who are not interested in the information, but Wikipedia:NOT#TRAVEL does not mention anything about lists of bus routes, it is about not writing about every landmark, hotel and the like. No travel guide would include a list of all london bus routes in this format because it would be pretty useless, which is precisely why it doesn't even appear on the Transport for London website. Presenting it as information that would be in a travel guide is a very poor comparison, presenting it as a List of London bus routes with links to associated route and geographic articles, it serves its factual purpose. Patently nobody is going to use this list rather than Tfl for their London bus travel needs, which is something I think people in here haven't thought too much about. MickMacNee (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's still essentially a directory of bus routes and wikipedia is not a directory. It might not be in a travel guides, but it would be in a bus timetable which isn't very encyclopedic. No other city has lists such as this that i know of. I fail to see what is notable about this particular cities bus routes. Are we to allow bus/train/plane/tram route articles for every city on earth? It isn't really the purpose of wikipedia to contain such information. On reflection i think this is an indiscriminate collection of information --Neon white (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
London's system is notable because it is run on a relatively stable multi-operator franchise model with enormous public funding, as opposed to elsewhere in the UK, but that's beside the point. There are certainly hundreds of articles on WP detailing transport modes down to the route level, the proposition 'are we to list all xyz for all cities?' has not prevented these articles from being created and maintained, or are we supposed to be saving server space for more Star Trek articles? This list doesn't serve any kind of useful transport information purpose, it is a numbered list of routes pure and simple, notable or not. You will not find this list in this format issued by a London transport operator or Tfl, because some of these routes are separated by a very long distance in travel terms - London is one of the biggest metropolises in the world. Another Afd here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Egged bus lines concerned an article that is much more like a travel guide, and survived with the same arguments presented here. There is clearly a wider issue surrounding this type of article and WP:NOT/N/DIR etc, with the same arguments are going round and round from what I have seen, with very few succesfull deletions. Raising and debating single Afds for every list is going to be pretty pointless unless the general policy is updated. MickMacNee (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transport for London has an article, it isn't the one in question. Please stick to points about this particular article and why it is notable or otherwsie. Wikipedia has clear limits to what should be included and i think the policies about what wikipedia is not are quite clear regardless of whether the majority of commenters on afds have actually read it or understand the criteria for inclusion. The article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Egged bus lines only survived due to some bad misunderstanding of guidelines and some incredibly spurious points, again incorrectly made about the actual transport system, which, as here, isn't the subject of the article. To justify both article you would have to claim that every single route was notable not merely the system they belong too. Is every street that is part of a road system notable? This a list to non-notable products of a company with price information. It's advertising commercial services. If a route has a notable history it's a different issue but 99% of these do not, therefore all they are are a bus timetable entries. --Neon white (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a price list or a bus timetable, it doesn't look anything like a timetable. Have you ever used a normal travel resource for London bus travel? It looks nothing like this list. I am not stating a case for it's notability, the franchise comment was merely an afterthought about the stability of the Tfl system which lends itself to a list of 'official' route numbers (not decided by companies or operators). Anyway, my comments are addressing the idea that this list is somehow a travel guide, I am saying it would be useless as such. But it has opened my eyes to the many times Afds like this have happened for lists of transport routes, and I don't think you can say that all these Afd failures are merely down to the fact only you are reading the rules right, if there is that much confusion there is clearly an issue with the policies. MickMacNee (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The articles contain prices and times of services. That is a timetable. If you read the previous afd, the result is generally lack of consensus, most of the keep pointing are not correct and are contrary to policy and guidelines on notability. I think it's more an issue with people not researching policies and not really understanding the purpose of an encyclopedia, that is not a random collection of information. If people understood that deletion wouldnt be necessary. I am still not convinced that bus route's are encyclopedic. --Neon white (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the last time, I am not commenting on whether it is notable or not, but regarding _this_ article as you insisted on previously, it is not a timetable, or a price list, or a travel guide, or a random collection of information (how can it possibly be random? It comes directly from an official structured system that exists in real life). And again, not once in WP:NOT does it mention bus routes or any other kind of route, not ever, not even in a round about way, so how can everyone but you be misunderstanding the policy? Take a look at this sometime aswell, Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Unencyclopedic, and try and clarify your objections MickMacNee (talk) 03:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly mentions that wikipedia is not a directory and this is simply a directory of bus routes in london, there is no other way to describe it, it has little to no encyclopedic value whatsoever and no context. it does say collections of information may be considered indiscriminate even if not specifically delineated. WP:NOT does not list an example of everything. Even if it exists and is verifiable it doesn't guarantee that an article is relevant for an encyclopida. What i actually said was that a number of people on the previous afd misunderstood the criteria for notablity and i still maintain that a large number of editors on wikipedia have no idea what an encyclopia is for, which can be seen plain for the amount of articles deleted. --Neon white (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think your lack of interest or conception of the use of this list to anyone beyond use as a travel guide (which it is not) is colouring your interpretation of the very vague 'and anything else' approach to WP:NOT. Also, on 'wikipedia is not a directory' - the policy has the specific caveat of "This provision is not intended to encompass lists of links to articles within Wikipedia". MickMacNee (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rework to include history, like list of bus routes in Manhattan. If there is an official split of the bus routes by areas of London, it might make sense to split the list (in New York, the routes are prefixed; Manhattan routes begin with M for instance, including some that cross into other boroughs). Many bus routes are notable descendants of street railway lines; for others, all the important information can be placed into a list like this. --NE2 20:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A list of links to related articles is an excellent sort of navigation list. IF there are articles for the bus routes - which there are - then this navigation list should be kept. If the bus route articles are someday deleted, then this navigation list will no longer be needed and will be eliminated.-Fagles (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing on WP:LIST that suggests this type of list is valid. Alot of the routes aren't notable. An article of notable/historically significant routes would be far more encyclopedic. --Neon white (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Make your mind up, here you want lists of bus routes to be mentioned specifically in WP:LIST, whereas above you use the fact they are not mentioned in WP:NOT to support the same case. You can't have it both ways. MickMacNee (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what is the objection? Would you expect them to be different? And yes, as you point out, they are almost the same, as in someone has decided that intermediate points in this list would be unencyclopedic, so as to avoid collecting indiscriminate information, or making a travel guide. MickMacNee (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are categories not lists, they are not the same and do not follow the same rules. Arguably this should also be a category. Public transportation in london is covered in a seperate article that clearly is notable, this article, however, is not an article about public transport, it is a directory of bus routes without context. --Neon white (talk) 18:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not comparing the article here with the categories, but with the articles in the categories, for example compare A632 road with London Buses route 632. Why is one notable and the other not? Why is List of bus routes in London less worthy than List of car companies that do not make FWD models? Both public transport and automobile transport are covered in great detail on Wikipedia with thousands of articles each. That has been accepted practice for years.--agr (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories and Lists are given equal weight under WP policy and are not mutually exclusive, if you are of the opinion that a category is allowable, then a list is aswell. And this list does have context, it has a clear parent article, and the term London Bus Route is a legal definition under the Tfl legal franchising framework. Again, I think your ignorance of the subject matter is clouding your opinion. MickMacNee (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page is a useful index for all the London bus articles. The London bus routes are all very notable. They are famous worldwide and have historic value. Tbo 157(talk) 18:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Somebody has obviously put alot of work into all of this and the pages it links too. Either keep it here or put it onto WikiTravel. It would be a shame to lose it all. 217.155.44.216 ([[User talk:217.155.44.21
  • Keep there are all sorts of things that are encyclopedic to some but not to others. Kingturtle (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_bus_routes_in_London_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138005496"