Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bus routes in Newcastle, New South Wales


 * 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 no consensus. There is nothing inherently offensive to the inclusion of this topic in the encyclopedia, and every new relisting merely generates a further split of opinion, rather than moving the discussion towards a consensus. bd2412 T 23:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Bus routes in Newcastle, New South Wales

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL Ajf773 (talk) 06:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep – Does not fall under any of the points mentioned in WP:NOTDIR and has nothing to do with WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists of bus routes for various cities are common on Wikipedia and are well accepted (see WP:LISTN and WP:LISTPURP). This article is as notable as any other listed within Template:Regional_NSW_public_transport and Template:AusPTBus. Kb.au (talk) 12:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually they are not. A lot of List of bus routes in xxx have been deleted in similar AfD's (a couple of examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_bus_routes_in_Bristol and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_bus_routes_in_Leeds. What makes you think it has nothing to do with WP:NOTTRAVEL, essentially all it is is travel!! Ajf773 (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Well established precedent for such articles. Aoziwe (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No precedent exists at all for list of bus route articles. Ajf773 (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure the article needs improving, but that is not grounds for deletion.  Do all of these 300+ need deleting?  Aoziwe (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of them are candidates for deletion as well. Category:Lists of bus routes only shows less than 50. I have started flagging some too. Ajf773 (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Either the 300+ established a precedent or it does not. Either they (probably) all go, or they all stay including this one.  Yes they are bus cruft with no intrinsic notability, but there are also literally hundreds of thousands of other articles with no intrinsic notability which are agreed to be notable (currently at least).  Aoziwe (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A good indicator of notability is whether any of the individual bus routes are notable in their own right. The only British based list article to survive AfD is List of bus routes in London, mainly because roughly 10-15% of bus routes have articles and/or are notable enough to have one. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. Ajf773 (talk) 07:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Neutral, I am kind of on the fence, yes it could kind of fall under the NOTTRAVEL but does not really necessarily fall under NOTDIRECTORY. The only reason I am saying that is because unlike some I have seen on here, it provides a bit more than just a list of bus routes in Newcastle, New South Wales it actually talks about them, and such, now I could see if the wording and article was a bit more improved and polished and have a bit more content it really saying keep, but I could also see a merge into the main article about Newcastle, as a section. With reducing the amount of bus lines mentioned and keeping to the more notable ones. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see much about detail about any of the routes in this list article apart from basic info such as termini, main stops and content about days of operation - nothing of importance at all. There is also a whole section relating to bus lanes (despite being unsourced) and a nice table of fares (this bit definitely fails WP:NOTTRAVEL). All in all, individually are almost always not notable and it's unlikely any routes in a city of around 300,000 will ever have one. Ajf773 (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as fancruft lacking significant secondary sources discussing this set of routes to establish notability. It fails WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOR at the least.Charles (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - doesn't violate WP:DIR and AfD is not cleanup. This is better than a lot of the other "Bus routes in ..." articles, given that the article talks in more general terms about services in the area. You can make an argument that some parts of the article could be removed or rewritten, but the article doesn't warrant deletion. -- Whats new?(talk) 22:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Per the majority of AfD's outcomes, WP:NOTDIR has been mentioned multiple times. This is a simple list of non notable bus routes ... as Charlesdrakew puts it: WP:FANCRUFT. There is no in-depth mention of terms and services in the article nor any need for one without potentially violating WP:NOTTRAVEL Ajf773 (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, the topic is notable. AfD is not a substitute for changes in the article -- Whats new?(talk) 00:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What's notable exactly? Bus transport in Newcastle? or the bus routes? Be specific. Ajf773 (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Train routes are notable, airline destinations are notable, tram lines are notable. I don't see much difference -- Whats new?(talk) 01:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Rapid service routes are often notable, that includes heavy rail, light rail and tram routes. It may also include routes as part of rapid transit networks (with limited stops) but not local routes (unless there is sufficient secondary sources to satisfy WP:N. The same goes for stops, RTN stops (such as stations) are notable, bus stop are not. Ajf773 (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And this article isn't about an individual route, its about all of them. -- Whats new?(talk) 01:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And from previous examples they don't often pass AfD's. I can't compare this article to the other, but I can't see anything above and beyond other than just a list of barely sourced routes. Ajf773 (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Tram and train routes are permanent physical infrastructure. Bus routes are subject to frequent change and difficult to keep updated and accurate even if we wanted to.Charles (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep for the reasons given by other editors. In expectation of a badgering from Ajf773, no need, have noted what has been said above and my position is unlikely to change. But agree that the fares table should go. Turingway (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I also agree that the fare table section should go, per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Kb.au (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Nothing to consider here, as the nomination is a WP:VAGUEWAVE unsupported by preparation on the talk page to show that this was a problem that needed community-wide attention.  Suggest more attention to WP:BEFORE going forward.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The two policies presented in the AfD seems very obvious to me. Ajf773 (talk) 02:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with Unscintillating. Pointing at policies without explaining how it fails them is not helpful. WP:NOTTRAVEL talks about restaurant reviews, pricing and contact information, and indiscriminate tourist location listings. WP:NOTDIR is more relevant, but the examples it provides are mostly instances of ephemeral information (upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules) or unimportant information (a list of a company's patent filings). A list of bus routes is neither of these things, being both permanent and the primary component of a bus network. The article is more than just a list anyway, with the lead detailing the different bus companies operating the network. Kb.au (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTTRAVEL points to WP:NOTGUIDE. A travel guide is a guide. Its scope is not limited to restaurants, pricing, contacts... it may also include public transport. Ajf773 (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with Kb.au. This is a categorisation of Newcastle commuter bus routes by region, not something assocaited with recreational travel planning or guides. Given that some amount of effort has gone into preparing this, and that the contributers of this info don't seem to be aware of the AfD nomination, it seems wrong to just remove all this work. I have improved the article slightly and added a back link from the Newcastle Transport page. To remove duplication, the fares section could be remioed and instead point to Opal_card Teraplane (talk) 10:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as per Charles and nom - Fails WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:BUSCRUFT and WP:GNG - Back in 2014 the UK bus routes were all deleted due to a lack of notability and there's nothing different with these, Also if a passenger wants to know where a bus goes to and from then they should check the bus operators website - not an encyclopedia!, and last but not least a lot of these all become outdated anyway (One article a few years back was 5 years out of date!), In short this whole article fails GNG as well as the bus-related guidelines. – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 13:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There are four bus operators across Newcastle, a passenger may not know which ones applies to their area of travel. This article defines that regional grouping. It also includes links to the operating companies timetables and fare guides in 'External Links', which of course is maintained and kept up to date. Teraplane (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Searching "261 University of Newcastle" gives us various search results all of which mention the bus company, Bus timetables go out of date all the time and so do the links to them, They may well be kept up to date however that doesn't address the GNG issue here which is our core policy. – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 18:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * http://www.newcastletransport.info/plan-your-trip/bus-services is all people need to locate a bus in Newcastle, NSW. Ajf773 (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - For the solid reasons given by other editors above. I agree that the article's fare tables can go, but AfD is a wholly inappropriate place to discuss problems within an article. That's what the Talk page is for, or being WP:BOLD. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The problems are the article itself. AfD is the right venue for this. Ajf773 (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Agree that any issues should be confined to Talk. This page has been there since 2006 with no problems arising and gets 700+ view per month. It's had 105 edits, what sort of message do we send to those editors if we simply throw away their work with no warning, unless you are watching the page? The linked wiki pages for each bus operator concentrates on their own services. This page gives a useful grouping of services by region and not company. I have replaced the table of fares with a link to the appropriate wiki page to address some of the concerns above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teraplane (talk • contribs) 23:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not everyone's problem if editor's put in a lot of work and content doesn't meet any of the policies of Wikipedia. There is plenty of warning as this AfD discussion has been present for over two weeks and relisted several times. Ajf773 (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My point is the article is widely read and updated, therefore useful to many. Highly unusual to class this as AfD, which is better suited to very new articles on trivial or self serving content. It may not meet your interpretation of Wikipedia polices, which often are in the minority. I've traveled often to Newcastle and used some of these bus services. So can vouch for the articles usefulness. You don't seem to have any particular knowledge of or interest in Newcastle bus transport. Many editors are not aware of the AfD process and would not monitor their contributions unitl it's too late in the case of a successful AfD. So again the Talk page is the correct place to highlight areas for improvement, along with enhancing the page itself. Teraplane (talk) 10:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Just travel guide / directory-type information, which we do not carry per WP:IINFO. The "keep" opinions are weakly argued, as they do not rebut this argument, and such statements as "well-established precedent" are also weak as well as dubious, given the several previous deletions of similar articles.  Sandstein   15:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:NOTDIR, if people want to know this they'll go to the bus company's website (which would be more up to date anyway), not wikipedia.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Selective merge and redirect to Newcastle Transport, the new route operator. Specifically don't include the four sections with bus numbers; instead point readers to the timetables in the external links section. Why duplicate effort? This is excessive info for an encyclopedia, especially since there's no sourcing to indicate that these are anything more than run of the mill bus routes. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTDIR. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  23:23, 4 January 2018 (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.