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


 * 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   delete. ‑Scottywong | confer _ 17:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

List of bus routes in Ashbourne

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia isn't a travel guide - this belongs on Wikivoyage, not here Davey 2010   Talk  02:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as a non-notable subject failing WP:GNG which also fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. These type of lists are almost impossible to keep up to date and are not encyclopedic content. They do not make a stable encyclopedia.--Charles (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. This is an omnishambles of a nomination but the policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable and impossible to reliably maintain. A sentence or two on the Ashbourne article would suffice to summarise the content probably. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Kill off this and all other bus route articles - or transwikify to Wikitravel. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from Ashbourne, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus.Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 11:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are  more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable.  Adam Mugliston  talk  20:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2013 (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.