Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in London

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic, Wikipedia is not a directory (WP:NOT). Detailed information such as this can not be easily maintained as bus routes and frequencies change. Information on the areas served by buses should be on a general page such as Buses in London, with a link to detailed information of bus timetables etc that is readily available from the Transport for London's website MrHarper 22:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: These articles provide an insight not just to where they are now, but where they have been. It is common knowledge bus routes are changing but this adds to the history. I think the bus routes are not really showing to be timetables either and are constantly expanded. Also, in what way are they directories? They do not show adresses and contact numbers or any other similar info. Those are not my only reasons.Simply south 23:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It is a good index for the route articles (which have themselves survived AFD). Furthermore, the information is not set out in the style of a timetable (which may be cited as criterion for deletion); instead it shows which operators control the various routes and their scope (start and end points). The information, in this format, is not available elsewhere. Mrsteviec 07:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep London bus routes do not change that often, and this list, with just start and end points, is not that detailed making it easy to maintain. It does not contain frequencies as mentioned in the deletion request. It is an efficient way of presenting information not available in this format from the TfL website. How exactly would "Information on the areas served by buses should be on a general page such as Buses in London" work? Sounds like one very long and complicated page to replace a simple, easily used (and maintained) list. Page94 10:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Most of the article seems to simply be a directory of unverified and (possibly) non-notable facts, which has presumably been sourced directly from bus timetables. If that was all there was, then I'd recommend deleting the article for breaching WP:NOT in several ways (mere collection of public doman material, directory, indiscriminate information). However, a part of the article is a list of links to articles. The linked articles have recently survived the deletion process (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 1, though it is worth noting that despite that AFD those articles still all look to be OR), so can be regarded for the sake of this AFD as valid articles. So while I think that this sort of article shouldn't normally belong on Wikipedia, as this article is a valid list, linking to a large number of articles, it should be kept. It's also worth noting that it, and all the bus route articles, are in need of some references. Hopefully this AFD process will motivate someone familiar with the subject to reference these articles. --Mako 22:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Wikipedia is not a compilation of all information that exists anywhere.. A category already exists indexing the notable bus routes. Therefore this list is redundant. --Mako 21:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per proposal, WP:NOT a directory. Garrie 22:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it becomes a list of related articles then that would be better served by a category, Category:London Bus Routes or similar

Comment What would you know, the category already exists: Category:London bus routes. Maybe the list is redundant then ... -- Mako 23:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - per Page94. (JROBBO 04:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• keep This is an important navigation/feeder page to the individual bus route pages. Without it, people will not be able to find individual pages such as London Buses route 9 (Heritage) Ohconfucius 13:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Page94. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 13:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: It appears this debate was not listed at WP:AfD before this point

• Delete current indiscrimate list. Delete all uninteresting / unencyclopedic bus route articles as well. Make a list (or keep current one) of important bus routes if some list of the remaining articles is needed. Not all info, however correct and well researched, is fit for Wikipedia. Fram 08:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think. I'm in favour of articles on train and metro lines but I think I draw the line at buses - although my local routes might be interesting to me because I have travelled on them, there doesn't appear to be any genuine notability for bus routes. MLA 13:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Bus routes? C'mon... no encyclopedic value there... Wickethewok 15:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lists of bus route, airline schedules, train routes or garbage pickup schedules are instantly obsolete and inaccurate. Saying "They don't change that often" means that they do change. Then Wikipedia has incorrect information. It is better to include a link from the article on the city in question to the actual webpages of the transit companies. This makes as little sense as including the London phone directory in Wikipedia. General comments about the history and nature of mass transportation in a city are encyclopedic, but this isn't. Edison 15:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP Articles on London buses have survived nomination after nomination after nomination and yet somebody else comes along and says "It's not factual enough". I, along with numerous other editors have worked hard to ensure that they are, so if you want to get rid of this list you might as well get rid of List of hospitals in England and other such lists. This should remain and continually be added to.sonicKAI 16:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, not every London bus route has its own article. Yet.sonicKAI 16:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep useful and maintainable; categories and lists are complementary. — brighterorange (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Page94. SliceNYC 21:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment regarding keeping these type of articles up to date. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a schedule or guide, but an encyclopedia. As such, if a list of bus routes is encyclopedic it shouldn't only include current routes, but should also include historical routes (which would arguably be more useful than a list of current routes, as current routes are easily found on bus companies' websites). -- Mako 21:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete TJ Spyke 02:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete this is not the London Transport website. Eusebeus 20:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Encyclopaedic. Useful summary of the bus routes, both present and historical, leading to individual pages on each bus route. Gives immediate information (start/end locations, operator name) over that provided by the category. Mike Peel 20:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The information as presented is encyclopaedic. The fact that it has been maintained for many months (in the face of repeated calls for deletion) proves that this is maintainable. Page94, Mako and Mike Peel all also provide very good reasons for keeping these articles. Thryduulf 23:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Q0 03:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP Please keep this article. It gives infomation which is quite accurate —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.137.146.229 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. WP is not bus company website and has no chance to keep fluid content uptodate. In the past such "articles" had been deleted. Pavel Vozenilek 19:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you read a previous comment by sonicKAI you will see that articles about London bus routes have been put on AFD before and have survived. I am not sure about other bus routes but it appears there is a precident to keep London routes. You are going to have to come up with another agrument to delete. --Edgelord 22:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Many other articles have also gone through AfD process and survived as well. [1], [2], [3], [4] and many others. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 03:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as has been stated earlier, the bus routes in London do not change very often. Also the fact that the article is up-to-date and has continuously been so shows that your assumption that it cannot be kept up-to-date is wrong. There are many articles that most people would not even consider deleting that are not being kept up-to-date (e.g. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (President of Brazil), Ryan Air, September 29, 2003 and Republika Srpska all contain the phrase "expected in 2005" used in the future tense). Thryduulf 03:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In an old city like London these are the direct descendants of trams. --SPUI (T - C) 19:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sonicKAI there appears to be a precident for article on London bus routes to be kept. --Edgelord 22:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This belongs in a travel wiki. Vegaswikian 21:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This isn't a timetable, it's a useful compendium of routes, along with links to dozens (hundreds?) of related articles. Could be further enhanced by adding historical routes now discontinued, as has been done in similar articles. While this information may seem trivial to some, it is useful to others, and doesn't detract from the project. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - plenty of people are willing to make sure it remains up-to-date. CarolGray 20:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - and keep it up to date Y control 20:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Another comment. As I mentioned above, keeping it "up to date" shouldn't be the issue. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory. If something is worthy of being included in Wikipedia it doesn't matter if that thing is active or not (for example we have articles on topics such as Julius Caesar and Battle of Waterloo, even though those things do not exist today). So if today's London bus routes are worth listing then so are all cancelled London bus routes. -- Mako 22:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The London bus route structure has been remarkably stable, and we have been able to have articles on individual routes because of it. As such, listing them together appears to be completely justified. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please per sjakkalle these routes are stable and there is good precedent Yuckfoo 19:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I find some of these {afd} discussions contain votes that are justified (paraphrasing) "well, I never heard of it, so it can't be notable." -- Geo Swan 22:47, 30 August 2006 (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.