Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bus routes in Winchester, Hampshire


 * 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. Merge may be a viable option, discussion should continue on the talk page. Courcelles 03:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Bus routes in Winchester, Hampshire

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Wikipedia is not a place for travel guides - that is what Wikitravel is for. Nor is it a place for minority interests such as bus/plane/train spotters - that is why the foundation set up Wikia. Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 11:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Revising my nomination for those who may not have read the specific guidance in WP:NOTDIR - WP:NOTGUIDE states that travel guide content belongs at Wikitravel or Wikia travel instead. --Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 14:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment A simple list of bus routes is neither a directory or a Travel Guide. Re WP:NOTDIR. A list of bus routes is not "Genealogical entries", "The White or Yellow Pages", "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business", "Sales catalogs", "Changelogs or release notes", "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations", "A complete exposition of all possible details" nor really a "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics", so WP:NOTDIR does not have any points within that a list of bus routes would contravene. Re WP:NOTGUIDE, I won't list all the points again, but the only one that could be argued a list of bus routes is against is point 2, "Wikipedia is not a Travel Guide". However, this is referring more to using Wikipedia as a sort of holiday travel guide with tourist destinations, restaurant, hotel or venue as it says in the text. You wouldn't use a list of bus routes to actually plan a trip out on the bus, therefore a list of bus routes is not a Travel Guide. You'd need the complete bus timetable for it to be anywhere near a travel guide. Arriva436talk/contribs 18:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. Adam mugliston  Talk  11:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - And WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason for a keep. Show me one substantial, independently published source for ANY of these Original Research Bus Route Cruft pieces, please. Carrite (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge into a revised List of bus routes in Hampshire. This would be a county-wide list, to match the formats of the other List of bus routes in England. Arriva436talk/contribs</b> 12:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - is there a particular reason why all of these have been nominated separately?? It would have made it much easier if there was a joint nomination. <span style="font-family:Zapfino, Segoe Script;"><b style="color:#FF0000;">Arriva436</b><sup style="color:#800080;><b style="color:#800080;">talk</b>/<b style="color:#800080;">contribs</b> 12:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Nor is it a place for minority interests such as bus/plane/train spotters - that is why the foundation set up Wikia." - what? Where on earth does this appear in policy? Using this logic, every article about buses - including four GAs, one of which is about an individual route - would be deleted. If you really feel that minority interests shouldn't be represented, why did you write List of artists who have performed at the Colston Hall, which gets less than one-third of the views that this article gets? This smacks of personal bias, and should be ignored by the closing admin. And it's been copied across ten of these AfDs! There are plenty of good reasons why this article either shouldn't exist or should be rewritten in a different format, but this is not one of them. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a compendium of popular culture. It is not a universal list of bus routes, nor should it be. There are places on the internet where this information may be rapidly obtained, riders do not and should not be coming to Wikipedia for this information. Carrite (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK then, if you actually check, you will find that "There are places on the Internet where this information may be rapidly obtained" is completely wrong, and that actually this information is very hard to find all in one place, especially for Hampshire-wide information. Unless of course you did actually check before making such a statement, and you can give a link that will show the same information in a similar format...? Besides, why should information about buses not be included on Wikipedia, when 1) there is no policy against it and 2) There is far more information about train, ferry and plane services, meaning without buses there's an odd hole in coverage? <span style="font-family:Zapfino, Segoe Script;"><b style="color:#FF0000;">Arriva436</b><sup style="color:#800080;><b style="color:#800080;">talk</b>/<b style="color:#800080;">contribs</b> 19:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, so you're saying this should be kept since it's valid original research that can't be found elsewhere?!? Lists of bus routes are pretty much a textbook definition of unencyclopedic local cruft. Carrite (talk) 03:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If lists of bus routes were "textbook definitions of unencyclopaedic local cruft" then they would be mentioned, explicitly or implicitly, in at least one of the pages we have giving examples of things that Wikipedia is not for. However, they don't appear in such lists because they are neither unencyclopaedic nor cruft - unless you are going to present any evidence to the contrary? Many of these list of bus route articles are sourced, none of the others has been shown to be unsourceable. Just because there is no single place on the internet that gives easily accessed encyclopaedic coverage of a subject does not mean that we should delete our coverage of the topic - indeed our job is to be that single, easily accessed provider of encyclopaedic coverage. Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge- per user Arriva436. Outright delete of the information is not consistent with well-established lists List of bus routes in Hampshire and List of bus routes in England. --Noleander (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. It is most unlikely that significant coverage in reliable secondary sources will ever be found for this material. The article fails General Notability Guideline, Notability of Standalone Lists guideline, Wikipedia is not a Directory, Wikipedia Stand Alone List Guideline Wikipedia is not a Travel Guide and Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information. If this sort of material is kept it is always liable to become outdated and a source of misinformation if editors concerned lose interest. Even if we have legal indemnity against any unfortunate consequences of providing wrong data we have a moral responsibility to avoid doing so, not to mention the potential damage to WP's reputation. It is not just a case of not liking it as there are sound reasons for not keeping it.--Charles (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:SAL do not mention buses or anything transport related, while WP:NNC clearly states most lists do not have to satisfy GNG. Adam mugliston  Talk  20:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - nominating 8 "list of bus routes in ..." LISTS, with 'rubberstamp' rationals, separately was pointless. If your rational was the same in all of them, why not do a single AFD for the Group of them. All my keep reasons are stated in the currently ongoing Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Peterborough (2nd nomination) Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a perfectly notable article which just needs a little expansion, is all.  Rcsprinter  (talk)  12:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, of all the nominations with copy/paste rationales this is clearly the one it is least relevant too. This is an extensive, referenced encyclopaedic list. It could do with some additional historical information perhaps (although that might be better suited to a separate prose-based article), but that is far from a reason to delete. Please see Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Peterborough (2nd nomination) for a detailed refutation of the arguments that WP:NOTDIR disallows lists of bus routes. Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, or else Merge per suggestion by Arriva436. No independent reliable sources for this grouping of items (see WP:LISTN).  Although the individual items in the list don't each need to be documented as notable, the "grouping or set in general" needs to pass notability requirements — something which I don't see here.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 06:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs pruning of excessive information and better sourcing, might benefit from a merge. However, I disagree with the nomination statement per my comments here, and do not see that the article needs deleting.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

*Keep with the same rationale as the other AfDs. Th detailed routes are normally considered excessive coverage, and should be deleted, but otherwise this is a standard sort of article. Merging into larger jurisdictions is always possible, but probably Winchester is a sufficiently large city for this to be a separate article.  DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 31 July 2011 (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.