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


 * 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 03:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

List of bus routes in Andover

 * – ( 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) 11:22, 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) 14:52, 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 18:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. Adam mugliston  Talk  11:55, 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, a county-wide article to match with all of the other List of bus routes in England. Arriva436talk/contribs</b> 12:45, 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) 16:59, 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> 19:06, 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) 03:44, 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)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 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) 19:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If I lose interest, I'll make sure I put an AfD tag on this article. But for know, I'm fully interested and will continue to update regularly. And please stop quoting WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL, as we have already established, these have nothing to do with a list of bus routes. Also WP:IINFO does not mention bus routes or anything related to travel. Adam mugliston  Talk  20:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You do not own this article.--Charles (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course I don't. All I'm saying is, I'm still interested and I will update it, so I am an editor who is not losing interest, meaning the outdated problem is solved. Plus, per WP:NNC, GNG does not have to be satisfied. Adam mugliston  Talk  20:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Just being the list without excessive timetable or fare details makes this a normal article. It is not indiscriminate or over-detailed unless it starts listing the detailed routes. I am unable to understand the opposition to these articles if someone wants to maintain them. I similarly am unable to see that they are more functional in a combined article, though iI would not rule that out as a possibility if it would satisfy the objections. The important thing is the content, not the division  into articles.    DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 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 00:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is a perfectly encyclopaedic (partially) referenced list. Indeed it's better than some other lists around, although I'd prefer to see less emphasis on the current operating hours in favour of a discussion of them historically, this is a content issue (which might be better in a different article) that does not warrant deletion, just the normal editing and discussion processes. 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) 16:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The page needs a prune, removing timetables and some other frivolous information. However per my comments here I disagree with the nomination statement.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge with other similar articles into List of bus routes in Hampshire. Delete rationales that such lists are intrisically against policy are misguided since none of the cited policies prohibit such information provided it can be verified, which it can. Merge because the town has fairly few bus routes, some of which run into other areas of the county and are duplicated in other such articles (e.g. route 76 is also listed in List of bus routes in Basingstoke). Contracted routes are operated under contract to Hampshire county council (not a smaller division), the available sources seem to cover the entire county and other similar sized counties are covered as single lists. The minute route detail isn't necessary, just the main list. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:02, 27 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.