Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bus Terminuses in Hong Kong


 * 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   redirect to Transport in Hong Kong .  MBisanz  talk 00:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Bus Terminuses in Hong Kong

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Listcruft. Can't remember the wiki link for that. check out WP:NOT Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 23:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC) 
 * Weak keep I wouldn't quite call this cruft, it might actually be useful to someone. T.B.S. it's very difficult to follow as currently written, needs to be cleaned up and categorized by neighborhood. -Senseless!... says you, says me 23:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete USEFUL isn't a reason for keeping. I likewise can't remember where I've seen it, but there's a policy statement that rejects bus stops: and what more is this?  Nyttend (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Comment' bus terminals in general seem to be topics where articles are generally built on, so in theory the list article should be kept, if it can be reduced to terminals. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete A map of existing bus lines and their routes in an article on the city's public transport is useful. This isn't and it's not encyclopedic either. - Mgm|(talk) 08:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Lists that perform neither an internal-navigation function nor an encyclopedic purpose in themselves simply do not belong in an encyclopedia. Its disordered and all-encompassing nature, combined with the general lack of notability of individual entries, makes it useless for navigation, and its complete lack of commentary and sourcing makes it wholly unencyclopedic as an article in itself. This is pure indiscriminate information. ~ mazca  t 01:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a prime example of Busstationcruft that adds nothing to the understanding of HK's public transport infrastructure. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral/Merge with Transport in Hong Kong after cutting it down a bit. Maybe we should keep the most commonly used termiuses and delete the rest.--Leolisa1997 (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.