Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Rhode Island Public Transit Authority routes


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

List of Rhode Island Public Transit Authority routes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NOTDIR. Is just a list of bus timetables. Nothing else of importance Ajf773 (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep or move to main article: NOTDIR is wholly irrelevant here - this isn't an arbitrary list, but a cohesive set. I moved the listing from the main article because it was taking up a lot of space; it can be moved back there (without the ELs if necessary) if you think that's preferable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * But it is a directory ... of bus routes and timetable, and there is nothing pertaining to notability of the routes. Ajf773 (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Keep - Based on this category, it looks like a pretty common kind of list, and especially since the system is pretty small (and singular), there's going to be some coverage in regional media. Don't have a strong opinion about merging (to the RIPTA article, presumably), but it seems like stand-alone works. Not keen on the column with external links (WP:EL), but that's not necessarily relevant to this AfD. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 21:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep / Comment - List has a bit more information than shown directly on the website, so it may stand here. This bus route list is slightly more developed than the one found at this deletion discussion. It provides more insight, but not by much. If the decision is "keet", it should be expanded to include more relevant information. Not all bus lists have insufficient information to justify an article existence, but I am glad we are distinguishing them. BRES2773 (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I find WP:NOTDIR completely relevant and concur with nom. I see no encyclopedic value in a list of bus routes. MB 03:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * weak keep, but it should be expanded with more information (e.g. when the route commenced, any major changes to it, significant discontinued routes, etc). NOTDIR does not mean that we need to delete every list that might be a directory if the encyclopaedic information was removed. Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep More expansion will probably help the article and reduce the NOTDIR issue. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL.Charles (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep AfD is not cleanup and while this could use some cleanup, it could also be expanded into a notable topic. Sources such as and  SportingFlyer  talk  23:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the sources listed above which show that the topic passes WP:NLIST, no valid reason for deletion eccept unspecific generalisations, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - Note that closed this as keep. I agree that non-admins should not close controversial XfDs, but I'm sympathetic to the idea that this was not actually so controversial.  then reverted the close without talking with Atlantic306 or going to DRV, and was undone (and then redone) by Atlantic306. I guess we're now waiting for an uninvolved admin? (this was all before Atlantic306 !voted of course) &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 21:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails NOTDIR (There's not much prose to this article, Whilst lists are acceptable, as a rule there should be prose and in this article and at present there's not much as such and as such I would consider this to be a simple directory)
 * Fails NOTTRAVEL (I would consider this to be a travel guide - It's giving you the bus companies names and where to board and alight from so I would consider that a guide),
 * Fails BASIC/GNG - (There has been no evidence of notability provided, 2 sources have been provided for 2 bus services but as a rule of thumb each service should be sourced),
 * The table as a whole provides no knowledge to our average reader other than were a bus goes from and too - This information is as far as I'm aware all on the separate bus company articles so as such a huge table is not needed, I'm not seeing any valid reasons for keeping this at present. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * there isn't much prose but the table is not that huge with 93 entries, also it could be useful for readers that they dont have to go to each seperate article but can find it all in one easy to read table, refs should not be a problem as they are popular bus routes, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Popular bus routes? Only the R-Line has an article (as it is a rapid service), the rest are just run-of-the-mill bus routes that would unlikely pass WP:GNG as do the majority of bus route articles. There is nothing of notable value other than a directory of bus routes which was Wikipedia is not. The timetable information has now been removed. Ajf773 (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * the article had helpful specific links to the correct timetables for each route but the nominator has just removed them  for no valid reason as WP:NOTTIMETABLE refers to the inclusion of the timetable in the article not links to the timetable,  Atlantic306 (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We're not a travel guide. We should not have any sort of links pointing directly to bus timetables for this reason. Ajf773 (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ajf773's correct there's only one article so I disagree this article isn't and cannot be useful to anyone, There are run-of-the-mill services and the lack-of-notability proves that, External links shouldn't be in articles and timetables alone cannot be used as sources anyway, I'll also add having external links like that would essentially mean the article's a repository if that makes sense,
 * We have to remember we're an Encyclopedia and as such should cover all wide ranges of topics but in this case like I said above I fail to see what's encyclopedic and knowledge-worthy about a table with a few pictures. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:43, 30 September 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.