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


 * 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   Rename.. This discussion garnered more interest than similar discussions. Will rename to Bus transport in Cheshire and cut the schedule out. Although there was support for this name change it was not overwhelming, so if folks believe the subject is still not notable a second AfD would not be inappropriate. J04n(talk page) 12:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

List of bus routes in Cheshire

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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 Cheshire, 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. Also it only has four sources. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 13:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as not notable Davey 2010   Talk  14:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. 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) 18:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect to Buses in Cheshire (or Bus transport in Cheshire if preferred. This article's starter for 10 could be the lead section of this list, which is useful and provides a good summary, and the external links section which is also useful if you're looking for a bus route in Cheshire. The article on Cheshire could use it's transport section having a bit of a rewrite whilst we're at it, with a paragraph added to deal with buses. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:49, 23 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  21:12, 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  →   00:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm neutral on whether bus route lists should be retained; I see arguments both ways. As a member of the Cheshire WikiProject, I'm not aware that there is an article on bus transport in Cheshire and the lead could be adapted to form the start of such an article; so, if not kept, could I put in a plea for a move to Bus transport in Cheshire? As a side note, it would have been helpful to have notified the Cheshire project of this obviously related deletion debate. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: Wikiproject Cheshire has been notified. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * From past experience, attempts to convert these articles into prose "Bus Transport in x" articles usually fails often leading to the article being left in exactly the same state that would have had consensus to delete had the option of rewriting not come up. I would suggest that if there is interest in creating such an article that it should be written from scratch (and could be now) - Though I would advise against copying the lead from here and instead write the an article based on the sources and write a new lead as a summary of that article. (The Golden Age of Buses by Klapper seems to cover Cheshire, as does Warrington Trams and Buses:A History of Municipal Transport in Warrington by Robinson, other local history books will fill in the remainder) Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not owning either of these sources, nor any others with significant discussion of bus services, I'm a bit stuck, unfortunately, as I'm loathe to copy the current text given the likelihood of deletion rendering the history inaccessible. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The Lead text isn't really above the threshold of originality and rewording it would remove the risk that it was entirely. But as I say better to write a new article rather than copy this lead. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Regretfully but this documents company histories and the absurd fragmentation of once publically owned bus network. As bus transport and routes govern the penetration of migrant workers, and the current governments xenophobic attack on Eastern European Workers, based partially on paranoia in the failing chancellor of the exchequer George Osborne Cheshire seat, it is a significant list. Regretfully, as the list is overlong and could be better formatted- but Wikipedia is not a travel guide does not apply, it gives frequencies but not times of buses. One does have to read the section not just the section heading. It is worrying that working class transport is singled out for deletion while lists of train routes and motorways favoured by the middle classes are promoted. A possible compromise is to rename it Bus transport in Cheshire-- Clem Rutter (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read the article, because it does no such thing? There are no company histories and it doesn't mention the fragmentation of the network it simply lists the current companies and lists their routes. NotTravel is clear that lists of hotels, cafe, restaurants. etc are not acceptable unless the individual items are notable - exactly the same as lists of bus routes and there is no mention in that policy of times having to be mentioned simply the listing of the non-notable item is enough. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A history of the fragmentation of the once public bus network in prose would be without doubt notable however this article does not include any history at all so your reason for keeping it does not make a lot of sense. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 20:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment and Keep (e/c) I disagree that the 51 nominations for deletion of the various lists of bus routes should be considered separately. They need to be considered together, as the same objections and points will crop up for all of them. Alternatively, if they do not, then the articles that are deemed worthy of keeping need to be identified in order to tell other editors what to do to bring the rest of the articles up to some standard that those feel they fail (and others pass) should have. I recommend closing all the AfDs here and inviting a much more widespread discussion in a suitable place about what a good article that includes the information should be like (for example, a transport-related forum, with notifications, that did not happen here until recently, that such a debate is being held on all projects that have an interest in this.) I also note that if these articles are deleted, then various templates also need to be proposed for deletion because they will then be unused or otherwise superfluous. Finally, as Clem Rutter has noted, similar lists of motorways, train routes, etc need also to be deleted if one is to be consistent according to the criteria those in favour of deletion have advanced here. However, I do not see them as having been! Eating away at articles dealing with one small part of the transport of the UK should not be allowed to proceed unless first there is an explicit and coherent view about transport articles as a whole. DDStretch    (talk)  10:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There was an RfC at the village pump 2 years ago the outcome of which was that there was no broad consensus either to keep or to delete but that every article should be considered on its own merits - hence the need for 51 separate AfD's. Generally I've striven to do that when commenting though the majority fail policy in an identical hence like here I've used a copy and paste response that addresses all those failings. The only one article that is liable to pass muster here is London which hasn't been nominated, but both secondary and primary sources exist for its content, and it exists as an index of individually notable routes that doesn't happen elsewhere in the country (The Souther Vectis one is a marginal one for the same reasons with a current move towards merging into the bus company article). Lists of Motorways and Rail Lines generally pass muster for the same reason They index individually notable lines/roads which are supported by a number of reliable secondary sources - there may be some which fall short but they need to be identified separately and nominated separately. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We already have perfectly good articles on the subject of buses - for example Buses in Bristol or Buses in Portsmouth. These are prose articles that detail the history of buses (and their significant routes where appropriate) in localities. If you want a much more basic article then even Buses in Lowestoft has some things going for it. Lists of bus routes, however, almost always fail to deal with notability per the GNG - they have significant differences from the majority of roads or railway lines and, as a result, tend to lack the required third party sourcing. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:N, WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. It is unfortunate that so many of these lists are on at the same time but they are no more notable than a list of hotels or a list of convenience stores.--Charles (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them.  Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained.  In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date.  In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 30 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.