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


 * 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. It's quite obvious that no consensus on what to do is going to be reached here. I would encourage all participants to continue discussing this matter with a view to coming up with a mutually agreeable solution on what to do with articles like this one. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

List of bus routes in Colchester

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-Notable subject fails General Notability Guideline, Notability of Standalone Lists guideline, Wikipedia is not a Directory, Wikipedia is not a Travel Guide, Wikipedia Stand Alone List Guideline, Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information amongst others. A recent RFC on the subject did not close but had a majority of users requiring that these subjects meet the General Notability Guidelines, Wikiproject Busses has over the years had several guidelines on this subject - The Bus route List guide - suggested lists of routes should only exist where "the bus routes in an area descended from streetcars, a list is appropriate, and if the system did not exist at all until the 1990s, it is probably not. In between those extremes, use your own judgment." The sources provided do not establish any history let alone a notable one reaching back to Tram Cars. Geographic clear-up guidelines from the project as part of the UK bus route quality drive suggest that routes are notable when they have Significant History or are Major arterial routes. If these routes exist then there may be notability grounds for having a list of routes that are notable in their own right, but not one of indiscriminate non-notable routes. None of the sources in the article are independent and certainly don't establish any of the routes as notable through history or importance. If the bus operators are notable then route information could be merged into those articles where it would be relevant but it does not support listing independent of that. Whilst other articles still currently exist covering similar material Other stuff exists is not grounds for keeping this particular article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - The page is not finished yet. I took a break for a couple days, but will continue. How about you wait until I finished and make it more notable, huh? The system was definetly set up before the 1990s, but unfortunately there are no sources of its history. Please wait with the deletion. &#39;&#39;&#39;Adam mugliston&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 10:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You sum it up when you say "there are no sources of its history" there are no sources about the routes other than bus timetables thus it fails every yardstick of notability that we use. As for the reasoning that you were on "a break" none of your other bus route list articles meet our notability guidelines so I see no past history that suggests you will get this one up to any standard where it would be acceptable to keep. Not only that if this AfD were to close on Delete I would recommend a bulk nomination of all your other non-notable route lists. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, at least I tried to polite, unlike your fairly rude reply. I am still trying to make the page good. Some of my other pages were nominated for deletion and survived. It is unfair to delete pages that are not completed. &#39;&#39;&#39;Adam mugliston&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 11:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you feel I am impolite then there are forums where you can discuss my behaviour such as WP:WQA, However I see my response as blunt but not in anyway offensive. The saving of your previous pages was on the basis that closing Admin was unsure of the weight of the argument that Bus Routes were automatically notable and did not have to comply with the General notability Guideline - On at least one close it was suggested that a central discussion needed to take place to discuss the matter. That central discussion took place at the policy village pump and the majority agreed that notability was a requirement for keeping. If those articles go to AfD again, I do not see them surviving in the basis of of that discussion. The completeness of the argument is irrelevant if the subject is not in any way notable - it is not going to become notable no matter how much work any editor puts into it. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm leaning towards weak keep. Keep. If Wikipedia was just an encyclopaedia I think I would agree with Stuart.Jamieson.  But we're more than just an encyclopaedia.  Per WP:5P we're also a gazetteer, and this is information of the kind that belongs in a gazetteer. I've always understood that the way this "gazetteer" function interacts with the GNG is that for a gazetteer-type article (e.g. lists of bus stops or rail stations, articles on local villages, etc.), something like a local map would be considered a secondary source if it was prepared by someone other than the service provider.  I'm a bit taken aback by the apparent degree of hostility expressed in Stuart.Jamieson's most recent contribution to this debate, and I wonder whether that was strictly necessary.  Finally, whatever the verdict here, Adam mugliston's good faith request for more time to work on the article should be respected and therefore, even if there's a consensus to delete at this discussion, the material should be incubated so that the work can continue.— S Marshall  T/C 11:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your support, S Marshall. Really appreciated, and I am pleased somebody understands that the page should be finished first. &#39;&#39;&#39;Adam mugliston&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 11:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * S Marshal, I don't have an issue with gazetteer information such as Bus Stations or Park and Ride systems or even actually notable bus routes, but many non main/non historic Bus routes are transient. One of Adam's proposed future articles (based on his user pages) is Bus routes in Edinburgh - From personal experience I know that the route information for Edinburgh has changed completely at least twice in the past 13 years and is due to change substantially again once the Tram routes are complete. This is the similar for the majority of Central Scotland - some bus enthusiasts will argue that they are static but we really need reliable secondary sources to ensure that these routes are actually notable and not changing every couple of weeks (as the Edinburgh ones have during substantial tramwork/Gas main renewal works over the past 5 years. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Stuart.Jamieson, you seem to be saying that the fact that the details change frequently detracts from the notability of the subject. Is that right?— S Marshall  T/C 12:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, We regularly have articles on things that change frequently but we use reliable secondary sources to discuss the changes in a historical context within the article. I think that because these routes are not notable, they are not covered by reliable secondary sources - Without those sources these articles are constructed with primary sources which are often in themselves transient and the article because of this these articles slide to original research, recentism, or both. If these routes are notable as a collection, they should be discussed in a prose article where changes should be documented by reliable sources in a historical context - An article should not have entries (or the whole article) re-written just because those routes no longer exist in the latest version of the operators timetable. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes but then a History section could be made using the previous resources, while the new routes placed into the current section.&#39;&#39;&#39;Adam mugliston&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Which simply adds to the list of indiscriminate information rather than contextualising it, and does nothing to help the notability problems. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that the substantive issue at this AfD so far is whether, in a gazetteer-type article such as this, a map is a secondary source. Stuart.Jamieson's position appears to be that a map is not a secondary source, whereas my position is that it may be, if the map is published by someone independent of the bus service provider and has editorial oversight. So if you agree with the S Marshall view, then (for example) something like an Ordnance Survey map would be a reliable source. The S Marshall view doesn't mean that every individual bus stop deserves its own article, because there isn't enough to say and the OS Map doesn't give each stop "significant coverage". It does imply that the more important routes would merit a mention in a list article.— S Marshall  T/C 14:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A map is a primary source, and even if it was to be considered a secondary source a bus route mention on it is purely trivial - it establishes no notability about the route or route system. Taking such a stance means that I could in theory create a list of every footpath running through my local golf course because they are mapped as routes and  some are even listed in independent walking guides - of course this argument is obviously false because both the map and the walking guide make only trivial mentions of those footpaths. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * S Marshall, do you think a map made by Colchester Borough Council would be a good secondary source? &#39;&#39;&#39;Adam mugliston&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Contrary to Stuart.Jamieson's position, my position is that a map is a primary source if prepared by the service provider, but can be used as a secondary source if prepared by someone independent. This means that in my opinion a map made by CBC would be a good secondary source, but the italicised phrase is important: you can use a map as a source in your article for the moment, but a consensus might arise in this discussion preventing it. I'd respond to the other limb of Stuart.Jamieson's post by saying the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy (specifically a kind of informal fallacy).  I'm not advocating creating a list of footpaths on a local golf course, I'm advocating allowing a list of bus routes in the city of Colchester.— S Marshall  T/C 16:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In the RFC on the subject Mick MacNee stated the following " In the rest of the UK, the design of the route is fixed for the term of the registration - penalties are imposed for not sticking to it in full, or simply withdrawing it" If true then CBC is not independent as it works with the providers in designing the routes, making changes to the design where required due to road closures, and ensuring the provider sticks to the routes. As such it is not independent of that process and materials it produces in relation to the route system are not either. That aside either as a primary or secondary source a Map does not assert any notability; it's only assertion is that of existence which is the point I raise with footpaths - Just because something (anything) appears on a map does not make it notable though it can be used to supplement other reliable sources which do assert notability. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Many (most) routes are operated independently from the Council. Why don't you suggest (not a link to a guide, please) a reference will would be good in your opinion. &#39;&#39;&#39;Adam mugliston&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I already have; please see my most recent post at Talk:List of bus routes in Colchester. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Operation of the route is different from Design of the route, and it's essential that the council has a say in route design to avoid inconveniencing local residents or risking damage to local services, as such it can't be independent when it discusses the design of the route (or creates a map). To be honest I don't see any sources that would save this article in it's current form - Local history groups are often good for instance if you can combine the material of something like this with other local history sources (preferably not ending in 1997 like that one but coming up to the present day) then you could create a new prose article something like Buses in Colchester but I don't see pure lists of just the current routes as encyclopaedic. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added some new references from the local newspaper. I have a quote from the Council: Once buses have left the bus station it's up to the operators how they run their routes." To prove this see:
 * If you're choosing to argue that the operator can change the route any way they want, then you're arguing that the routes are even more transient and notability of those routes is even less convincing. However, I think you're misreading the source; running the route is different from designing the route as I have said several times now. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing that the operator can change the route, what I am saying is that your opinion that a map by the council is not a valid secondary source is incorrect. Although you may think that several changes in routes make the article less notable, I think it gives the article potential for being even better and more notable, as then it is possible to provide a detailed history, which is always a good thing, which makes an article more notable. Also, although (theoretically) operators, or at least commercial ones, are allowed to change routes they do not unless very necessary. &#39;&#39;&#39;Adam mugliston&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you think it proves me wrong unless you don't appreciate the difference between how the route is planned (with the involvement of the CBC) which is the geographical element that you are citing maps to claim notability, and how the route is run (which is decided solely by the operator) which is the scheduling element and can be sourced to timetables. When you talk about history here you are suggesting what wikipedia terms original research as you are suggesting assembling a history from old timetables and maps rather than reporting a history already recorded in a reliable source. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * CBC does not design the routes, select the contractors, or provide the subsidy for those routes that are subsidised. These functions will be performed by Essex County Council's Passenger Transport Unit.  Colchester Borough Council's publications are secondary sources accordingly.— S Marshall  T/C 20:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is correct. If you look for timetables on the CBC page, you get redirected to Essex County Council.&#39;&#39;&#39;Adam mugliston&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Documents such as suggest that such decisions are made jointly with CBC and ECC and other organisations/bodies so without further information the map cannot be considered independent. What's worse is the maps are produced by FWT and could be produced for ECC, CBC, UK Gov or for one of the operators and simply reused by CBC with no means of us knowing. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The way local authority passenger transport units work is that they are administered at County level, and decisions are made at County level. Obviously the County needs to work closely with the Borough in many things, so as a matter of routine courtesy the County will consult the Borough and relevant usergroups before its decision is finalised.  But the fact that the Borough is consulted doesn't mean it makes the decision.  That's a County matter.  My position remains that Borough is a secondary source. With the map, even if I accepted that CBC would use someone else's copyright without acknowledgement—which for the avoidance of doubt I do not—surely what's relevant is not who drew it, but who publishes it.— S Marshall  T/C 21:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

UTC)
 * I am very experienced with public transport, as it has been my hobby for at least 9 years now. I know that the ECC decides everything about the routes. The Borough Council is only informed about them, they do not set the routes. The map is independent of anyone/thing, although its looks are based on the map by First, which do not have anything to do with the CBC's map. &#39;&#39;&#39;Adam mugliston&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - It's a perfectly valid list of routes of a major bus system in a major city. Bus routes are integral parts of the workings of a city and that is very encyclopedic.  I see "WP is not a directory" and "Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information" quotes frequently in bus route nominations but there is actually nothing in WP:NOT or its WP:IINFO and WP:DIRECTORY that bans list articles, nor list articles of bus routes. This list is discriminate and isn't a " repositories of loosely associated topics " or anything of the like.  I also notice the nom and the pack of delete voters are simply stating lists of bus routes are unencyclopedic in general and not making a case to delete this list article of this specific city's bus routes, yet they haven't touched the List of bus routes in London List of bus routes in Manhattan or the like which one would imagine are much more colossal violations of encyclopedic content to those who don't like bust list articles.  Like with the Peterborough bus routes AfD (it was kept), this looks like some kind of WP:POINT test case on a small market.--Oakshade (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Both the London and Manhattan lists are built around reliable sources; London around articles in the Guardian as well as bus histories of the system, and Manhattan around articles in the New York Times as well as bus histories of the system. They do not excuse the existence of this or any other list soley sourced to primary documents and trivial mentions. Peterborough closed as No Consensus along with other routes where the closing admin asked for a central discussion on whether lists of bus routes were automatically notable (as was the main keep point at the AfD) or whether it had to be established via the general notability guidelines - That request for comment took place and is linked above and found that route lists had to have notability established by reliable secondary sources. This is the first Afd since then and occurs on an article where notability and OR tags have been previously removed without the issues being resolved - but since AfD does require a test case before a bulk nomination it can be seen as that if you wish. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yet still, Lists of bus routes should not be historical,they are lists of what is running now not 20 years ago. That could be a seperate article or the list with its name changed to 'Buses in ...' with a current and history section. Colchester is as notable as London, after all they do claim do be the oldest recorded town in Britain. And your agrument of no secondary sources in invalid currently, as I provided valid secondary source for some things and am still searching. &#39;&#39;&#39;Adam mugliston&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You added a source which trivially mentions 6 routes it doesn't even identify those routes as notable let alone the 40-50 other routes it doesn't mention. Wikipedia is not a Bus Timetable, or Travel guide - it does not simply list the current state of a subject but has to put that state into an encyclopaedic context. These lists can have a place within a prose article (or a keep argument could be made as a spinout from a prose article) but they are not notable enough to stand alone. Finally your claim that Colchester (a town probably not known outside the UK) is as notable as London (a city which can be identified worldwide) is as flawed as it is irrelevant. What matters for this article is the depth and breadth of coverage of each place's bus routes in reliable secondary sources - London has a wealth of these; Colchester will have at most 1 perhaps 2. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think you actually even read the article! There is no timetale there, all there is is the frequency and in one case first and last bus times. That is not a timetable. The definition of that is - A public transport timetable is a listing of the times that public transport services arrive and depart specified locations. It isn't a travel guide either, as it does not have sufficient infromation to be one. See the links you posted in your first message on this page. Try and pinpoint one particular thing somewhere in those guides that I have on the article, that are not suppose to be there. You won't find any. How about you try finding some secondary sources (that in your opinion are good). See how hard it is. What does it matter if the article would stay, if you don't want to read it, fine don't, no one is going to make you, but leave it for the other people who would want to read it. Stuart.Jamieson, what is YOUR personal experience with buses, because if you don't have any, perhaps it would be better to stick with pages (even for deletion) that contains information you know about, rather than trying to delete things, you may not even understand properly. To Oakshade, thank you so much for your support. Needed a lot here. &#39;&#39;&#39;Adam mugliston&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 07:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It may not be a timetable or travel guide, but it's a lot closer to either of those than it is to an encyclopaedia article. I don't need to find "Secondary Sources" because I don't believe there are any, but they are they requirement we set if we can't find them then the article does not deserve to be on Wikipedia; and yes it can be hard for some subjects but putting in the hard work is worthwhile when it reveals better sources and makes a better article if they aren't available at all; the article should not be on wikipedia because an encyclopaedia is a high quality work and articles should at least have potential for becoming high quality. A list of Bus routes only does that in rare cases - for the rest, a prose article discussing bus transport in the particular region is capable of becoming much higher quality and being better sourced. My personal experience of buses (not that it's relevant) - Aside from using them over the past 30 years (though I prefer using trains); I have numerous friends who work for Alexander Dennis and I could tell you lots about the construction and design of the buses on the routes you seek to list. Personally I work in a service industry with connections to the Bus industry and regularly carry out operations that affect and are affected by service bus (and other transport) operators - Both logistically redirecting bus routes on behalf of a local authority and our private clients, managing vehicles at particular stops/venues, managing queues of patrons at stops, I've worked directly for Brian Souter as a client managing a large private bus system on behalf of the Stagecoach Group so yes this is an area I have experience in and I see the advantage in private sites maintaining this information - but it is not something of encyclopaedic value except in exceptional cases such as London. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is actually quite good experience. With that we could make a good article together. Why not? How about I'll tak ecare of the route and frequency part and you write about the bus type (I have a source for that). That could give this page great potential. Two experienced users who work together could make great things!&#39;&#39;&#39;Adam mugliston&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 08:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry but it's not a subject that I would enjoy writing about, if I did it would be bringing work into my hobby which I only ever do on a small basis (correcting some facts on my employer's article, adding some detail to the article of a film I worked on) - If you wrote such an article I might do copy-editing on it but that would be my limit. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would love to include that on the list (with the name changed). If you could only tell me of some source that could help, and then copy-edit that would be great! I could then make the pagew survive, if you please give me some time to add the things to it. &#39;&#39;&#39;Adam mugliston&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 09:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Many urban-suburban railway operators with articles here have route maps and some have route lists with photographs of stations, areas served, station opening and closing. Focus is on the service the operator provides over established routes. I note this article lists the operators at the top. From a public transport point of view, the routes might be listed by operator, and linked to operator articles, as it is done for rail transport. It is entirely possible that operators would change over time due allocation of contract to operators by way of bid and selection and proven capacity to provide the level of customer service the Essex County Council's Passenger Transport Unit specifies. If the article were to be redesigned by Operator listing for routes, then I would advocate Keep. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Whiteguru, the detailed sections lower down are, because routes 1,2,5,6,8,8A are operated by one operator, while routes 61-68 are operated by another, these are the only routes that will have a detailed section. They are listed by operator, although it is not specified on the article. &#39;&#39;&#39;Adam mugliston&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 10:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete. I totally agree with everything Stuart Jamieson has said, and it would be tedious to repeat it, but there is another important aspect that has not yet been addressed. If this type of aticle including detailed information on bus frequencies, start/finish times, weekend services etc. exist they can and will be used as a source of information by bus users who will find it easier than tracking down the bus operators' own sites. If the articles are not rigourously updated there will a serious risk that Wikipedia will be carrying misinformation. I have no doubt that Adam has the enthusiasm to do this now, but in seven or eight years time he may be at college, have a girlfriend or whatever and move on leaving these lists as a forgotten cobwebby corner of Wikipedia. If this was a list of sweet shops in Colchester someone taking their children to a shop found on WP, which had since closed, they would have dissapointed children but no real harm done. A single mother with a hungry baby waiting by a country lane in ten years time for a bus service which no longer operates at weekends, although it is shown on the WP page she has googled on her mobile, might be in a more serious situation. Do we want to risk some young person being abducted, raped, and murdered because they have followed out of date information on WP? Given the number of people who now use WP as their primary source of information this is not such an improbable scenario.--Charles (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Charles, that was a highly improbable, extremely negative scenario. There is a reason for which there is a date at the top. It says on what day the routes are valid. If the date is from 2 years ago, then someone will proably think about it, that things may have changed and it would be good to double check. I do go over my pages around every 1-2 months to check they're up to date, like I have recently done with Ipswich. As you may have seen, I know have found many secondary sources, that I have been adding for the last couple of hours. Also, route 6 has now got a History sections (which has appropriate references) and I am searching for more information. &#39;&#39;&#39;Adam mugliston&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There's certainly the potential for harm to people who rely on Wikipedia articles, although I'd suggest Charles' enthusiasm might be better directed towards Home wiring or First aid. The consensus is that the Risk disclaimer is sufficient, and we need not worry about the risk of harm from people following Wikipedia's advice (although I'm personally a long-term advocate of giving a great deal more prominence to the disclaimer links that appear on every page). The argument Charles makes doesn't traditionally carry much weight at AfD except in as far as it refers to biographies of living people (although in that case any risk of harm to a living person trumps almost everything).— S Marshall  T/C 14:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Charles, see the WP:Disclaimer. Your fear mongering is frankly utterly irrelevant to this Afd. If that's your only (stated) objection, I think its going to be completely ignored. MickMacNee (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I clearly stated that I share all of the objections raised by Stuart and it is not "fear mongering" to point out the real possibility of public harm and damage to WP's reputation from this type of unencyclopedic article. Wikipedia is not a travel guide.--Charles (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have now added 20 secondary sources. They are from the local newspaper and from an independent bus enthusiast who had his own page.Almost everything is now covered by a primary and a secondary source. I am still searching for more. &#39;&#39;&#39;Adam mugliston&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't intend to vote per my general stance in the Rfc. But if Stuart wants to start citing the Rfc in Afds he needs to get it closed with an independent summary. Second, if he wants to quote people's comments in it, he should inform them, as in my case he's got my meaning wrong - I was simply demonstrating their fixed nature, not their non-independence from authorities (and as said in the Rfc, there's not much point obsessing about that, as in all areas of the UK except London, subsidised networks mostly overlay commercial ones, the only difference is usually time of day). While subsidised services are designed by authorities, commercial ones aren't - but they have to registered and therefore cannot be changed willy nilly. Diversions, even long term ones, are irrelevant on that score. Whether these all appear on one map or several is generally pot luck and not indicative of anything. But I would tend to agree, maps are only usefull for verification, not asserting notability. I would finally note that Stuart has clearly stated he has no intention of looking for secondary sources - and as such, his comments should be weighted acordingly per WP:BEFORE. And per BEFORE, all this talk of converting this to a general article about buses in Colchester tells me that it would be rather pointless deleting the list of routes until then, as it would form a large, verifiable, section of that article. And as an article section, it would have no need to demonstrate notability at all. MickMacNee (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC
 * I am intending to change the article to Bus routes in Colchester, in which all of what is there now would be included, plus some things I have found about about the 1950s and 1960s transport. Stuart, I have found that the Colchester bus network does come from a tram system. If you would like to see the source, reply here.&#39;&#39;&#39;Adam mugliston&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Mick I'm quite happy to do so but wasn't sure of the procedure for un-archiving it preserving any relevant history and without breaking the archive. I intended to do so when User:Rcsprinter123 was discussed at administrator noticeboard incidents as he also primarily creates/edits these articles and it seemed pertinent when one user suggested he should concentrate on these; however I can find nothing in Archiving that tells me how to reverse the process - If you know/are able to do so I'd appreciate it; However I do not cite as a reason for deletion, I cite it as an important debate on the subject which contains many similar arguments against these articles but clearly it is neither a policy or guideline even if closed by an independent admin - For the same reason previous AfD's even when closed independently do not become policy though they can be cited when making changes to policy. Secondly I don't see any policy that requires me to inform you that I'm quoting you unless I'm directly accusing you of something, If you feel I am accusing you of something I'd like to know what it is or like Adam I suggest you discuss me at Wikiquette alerts not here. Thirdly if you say they are fixed by *someone* (which I draw from your quote) then that someone is not independent when discussing the route - as you agree that the map is only good for verification rather than establishing notability I don't see any need to discuss my argument further other than to say I was not expressly drawing my conclusion from your quote but also from personal experience. If you quote WP:BEFORE in relation to my comment "I don't need to look for sources", please note my previous comment "I don't see any sources that would save this article in it's current form" I had already searched for reliable sources that discuss the subject as a whole and found none, Adam's continual asking me to provide him with a source that I could not find and did not believe existed prompted the reply that I had no need to search (beyond everything I had already done) for a source that would save the article as I did not believe one existed - that does not mean I had not searched at all and in a reply where you accuse me of misquoting you, it would appear prudent for you not to do the same to me. Finally if such an article were to be created this should be the place to discuss such a change and the article should be incubated pending such a change - again this is the place to discuss incubation. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Additionally have asked at Administrator Noticeboard Incidents how to get closure of the RFC, but not had response yet. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Stuart, I am not asking you to find sources for my areas of expertise. What I would like is maybe a website you know of, that contains some of the information you say you know about buses, as this could help me make the page better. As you said: "I could tell you lots about the construction and design of the buses on the routes you seek to list.", I would assume you know of a place/thing that contains the information that you could tell me about. Particularly, if you know about the buses in Colchester, it would be a great help. &#39;&#39;&#39;Adam mugliston&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Adam, You have already been given information: Redrose64 told you to look for "write-ups in Buses Magazine", I suggested "Colchester 1904-2004 Trams to Arriva" by Collins and Mills at the link above, There are other sources such as "Eastern National and its Predecessors - 60 Years of Service to Essex 1930 - 1990;" by Dodson as well as the "Busmopolitan" one you found yourself; but these do not help the notability of this article in order to help save it - they do build further notability for a Buses in Colchester or Buses in Essex article. Why not start a userspace draft of a prose article and when it meets our policies of Notability and verifiability based on sources such as these then move it into article space (if you're not sure if it meets them you can add it to WikiProject Buses, or WikiProject Essex and get feedback from those wikiprojects) articles such as Buses in London are a good template, but the list here should be contracted and inserted into the article in the way that something like First Edinburgh does it, not spun out into a separate article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm intrigued. Why would Adam jump through all these hoops when he has a perfectly acceptable list to work on right now?— S Marshall  T/C 19:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am going to change the name of the article to what you suggested, Stuart, so that the "Busmopolitan" builds the notability. I found a source for the bus system in the 50s and 60s, as I mentioned before, and I will go to my local library to try and get the books you mentioned (I assumed they're books, tell me if I'm wrong). Could we just please vote for keep, just for know at least, as 4 days won't really be enough to transform the article. &#39;&#39;&#39;Adam mugliston&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case I would be willing to consider accepting userfication of the material until it met the general notification guidelines, but the question would then remain over similar articles you have created that remain unsourced (or sourced only to primary sources). If this AfD closes on that basis, would you consent to having them also moved into your userspace until you had similarly improved them as well? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: I have managed to get hold of Eastern National..., it will arrive in a couple of days. Unfortunately, Suffolk Libraries do not have Colchester 1904-2004... and I can't find archive issues of Buses Magazine. I do have some sort of old magazine behind my sofa, and I'll look through them for info, they're from 1978. I'll see if I can get to a WHSMith or something similar to see the latest Buses Magazine. Yes, I suppose they could get moved, but if someone would be willing to help out with finding sources for the rest. It's pretty hard work and I have some very important exams coming up (though I still have loads of time). &#39;&#39;&#39;Adam mugliston&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed my mind, and I think I would prefer the Winchester and Andover (at least) pages to stay. It will be very hard to find sources from there, as I'm not from that area and Suffolk Libraries, don't tend to get books on local history of other counties (except London). As for the Suffolk ones, they can be moved to my userspace.&#39;&#39;&#39;Adam mugliston&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * DELETE - I despair if this is what Wikipedia is coming to. Stuff like this doesn't belong here, it belongs on Wikia where all the Duane Dibbleys of this world can work together on a new version of FantasyBusWorld&trade;. Wikipedia is not a directory, not a place for hobbyists, not a place for bus spotters. Stuart Jamieson speaks a huge amount of common sense and I applaud him for bringing this to AfD. --Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 23:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your personal dislike of the topic has absolutely no relevance to this Afd. And admin who even thinks about giving your opinion any weight is on a fast track to desysopping tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Simple Bob. It's not a matter of whether the sources may or not may be sufficient and reliable, or whether they change or not. The matter is that the content is meant for an area that WP doesn't dwell that much into. The work done is very solid, and a very good source of information for the proper channel, it is just too fine grained to belong here. Anything on the history of the lines and any impact of them is more than welcome, just verify, don't research, and be neutral - frankieMR (talk) 02:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename and reformat as Buses in Colchester, as suggested below by Adam and S Marshall. The only thing I see a problem with is the timetables, the lines themselves are encyclopaedic - frankieMR (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As I hope you noticed, the whole timetable is not in the article. I include the frequency and first and last bus times, but no the whole thing. Adam mugliston  Talk  19:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * frankie, I am beginning to include Hisory sections, but you must understand it is very hard to find appropriate sources, when you are not from the same county, as local resources are hard to obtain from other places.
 * I understand, and i do support userfication of that material so you may work on it properly - frankieMR (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Simple Bob, You're saying that hobbyists (like me) and bus spotters are not allowed on WIkipedia. What next? Black people are not allowed on the English Wikipedia? You are almost being racist. If you have read the whole of the talk, you would have understood, what is going to happen. The article will be transformed, with lots more history. If you don't understand buses and everything that goes with them, please don't get involved with this discussion. &#39;&#39;&#39;Adam mugliston&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 07:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Racism? Really? That sort of response is exactly why children make such problematic Wikipedia editors. Such editors think they own their articles  and seem to take personally any criticism of those articles, resorting to increasingly desperate responses and feeling the need to respond to each and every point made on a talk page. Your time would be much better spent putting your Pokemon cards in alphabetical order. Leave Wikipedia to people who are mature enough to understand what is needed to write an encyclopaedia. --Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 07:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * For your information I do not have stupid hobbies like Pokemon cards (what are they?). I am mature for my age and not a little child any more. I do not take crticism personally, but want to protect the page from people who don't have a very good reason for deleting. Your time would be better spent minding your own business. I do reply to every post, because people don't understand that the page is getting a makeover. I will not leave Wikipedia.If you don't like me being here, you can leave. I'm staying &#39;&#39;&#39;Adam mugliston&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 07:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Simple Bob, I suggest that the reason your comments are sometimes "taken personally" is that you have a tendency to comment on contributors, rather than content. Try approaching this differently, and things might work a whole lot better. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Simple Bob frankie quotes WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, but I don't see which of these is a reason for deletion. It's verifiable that there are bus routes in Colchester.  It's not original research to list them.  And the list certainly maintains a neutral point of view.— S Marshall  T/C 14:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I quoted those three policies and not Simple Bob (AFAIK), and not as the reason for deletion of this article. I've modified it for clarity - frankieMR (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for that error!— S Marshall T/C 11:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep bus routes for a large (pop: 100,000+) city in the UK. Useful and informative.    Th e S te ve   09:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a directory, not a travel guide. There are better places to look for this type of information.--Charles (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What limits do you then draw on usefulness and informativeness for a large city - A List of Public Toilets is useful and informative and verifiable does it deserve a place? Of course today these are becoming rarer so what about more common things, I've already discussed footpaths above; but what about a list of all the Pizza Shops in a large city it's useful, informative, verifiable and if local papers have discussed the cities pizza shops from a common angle (comparison of them, walking tour of them, council regulations that affect them all) it may even be a notable subject? Surely Useful and informative is no better than saying "I like it so it should stay" we need a bar for inclusion as we cannot contain every indiscriminate list of things within a city that people think are "Perfectly acceptable" for inclusion here - For every other article we set that bar at a measure of how writers and scholars have noted the subject by discussing it in their work - no-one has done that here. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The pizza shop one is a good idea, I could help with that. I quite like the idea of bars too. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm on a low carb diet, any suggestions of lists for me? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Useful" and "informative" are listed on WP:ATA and not generally given much weight at AfD discussions; but the rebuttals seem equally weak to me, in that as I've said above, the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. Nobody's suggesting Wikipedia should publish a list of pizza shops in Colchester. As a "keep" !voter, I could make a similar argument.  I could say, "if we delete this then we ought to delete all the lists of buses on the encyclopaedia!"  But that would be a slippery slope argument too, and contrary to usual AfD practice, so I have avoided making any such statement.  I do urge that the "delete" camp refrain from such arguments as well.— S Marshall  T/C 14:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a slippery slope, I'm not saying "if we allow this article to exist; other articles will come to exist as well" which is the slippery slope - I'm saying we set a bar for the existence of other lists and asked TheSteve where he considered that bar should be placed - currently yourself and others are arguing for a bar that is easier to cross than the bar set by any notability guideline currently on wikipedia. Even gazetteers hav a level of notability above which they record things and below which they ignore it. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I do think it's a higher bar than, say, WP:PORNSTAR.— S Marshall T/C 15:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case you'll be able to find reliable secondary sources that will show that these routes have:
 * Has won a well-known award such as the UK Bus Awards or UK coach Awards.
 * Has received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years.
 * Has a unique history or is a uniquely important route such as The Witch Way
 * Has been discussed multiple times in notable mainstream media (such as a nationwide TV news report, or nationwide newspaper)
 * If not then then the bar isn't even as high as a Pornstar, much as you may think the subject is more useful than lists of those working in the Adult Entertainment business. I can't find sources that meet any of these requirements. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, hardly. Pornstars get articles when we're missing basic biographical facts (e.g. their names, nationalities, ages) and those AVN "awards" are issued by the bucketload.  There are better targets for deletionist zeal than bus routes!— S Marshall  T/C 22:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If they don't meet the bar that has been set for pornstars then they are eligible for deletion - feel free to go right ahead to prod or AFD them you appear to have the knowledge to make such a call - I do not and have no interest in gaining that knowledge. For buses there is currently no bar set other than GNG and the article fails it, it also fails hypothetical notability guidelines for buses such as the one above, unless of course you are proposing the creation of a guideline that all lists of routes are automatically notable despite a lack of reliable secondary sources analysing the subject (something that is nearly always disputed by everyone except it appear by bus enthusiasts) in which case go ahead and try writing and getting consensus for such a guideline before trying to use it in AfD. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realise that it's your position that this article fails the GNG. Mine is that it passes, because as I've already explained—and with all due respect for your many protestations to the contrary—a map is a source and a map from an independent publisher with editorial oversight is a reliable source.  I thought your arguments based on WP:NOTTRAVEL were stronger than the notability one, although still mistaken. I've never liked subject-specific notability guidelines and I generally prefer to apply the GNG in all cases, it's much simpler and more consistent that way.— S Marshall  T/C 23:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if we were to consider a map secondary for the purposes of General Notability Guidelines (it's not) it still doesnt "Discuss the subject in detail" (it just gives a general overview) and GNG says "'mutiple' sources are generally expected" to establish notability so the article would still fail GNG. This material would have a better home on the UK transport wiki on wikia where notability is not any requirement for inclusion. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 04:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, but, all that means is that we need two different maps by two different publishers: hardly an insurmountable obstacle. I agree that a transwiki to the UK transport wiki would be appropriate, but it's not necessary to delete this list in the process, since this list consists of appropriate content for Wikipedia's gazetteer function. The GNG evolved in order to deal with marketing spam, Stuart.Jamieson.  Its primary purpose is still as an advertisement-removal tool, as well as to require sources to prevent false claims.  The GNG was not intended to prevent good faith users writing uncontroversially true material that end-users might actually want to look up.— S Marshall  T/C 08:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Preicsely, two maps are not a problem. But the UK Transport Wikia? Think about it, how many people know of Wikipedia? 100 million? more? And how many people know of the UK Transport Wikia? 5 thousand? 10 thousand? Maybe 50 thousand. No more. There's no point putting it anywhere else, as on here it is far FAR more likely to be read. Adam mugliston  Talk  08:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If one map fails to discuss the subject in detail, then two are still going to fail that. That said No Original research found that while maps could be any type of source, they could not be used to confer notability of the subject - just for verifying other facts. Having multiple trivial mentions is never a reason for creation of an article. Also on your other point WP:GNG was adapted from WP:NMG which came into being because articles were being created for artists/songs that were not of enough notability to be of use to our readers outside of a minority of specialist users who would be better off at a site like wikia. - Early versions of GNG do focus on marketing issues but these have largely been taken up by specific guidelines such as WP:CORP and WP:SPAM whilst GNG still remains. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion you link was about roads, and it's important to consider its context and intended scope. To quote User:COGDEN from that discussion: We are not omnicient or smart enough here to codify, in a vacuum, when you should and should not use maps in all circumstances. In parallel with that discussion on roads, I've already said that I don't believe a map is sufficient to confer notability on an individual bus stop or a single route. That would be too narrow in focus for a useful gazetteer. (This parallels the previous discussion's conclusion that a map can't confer notability on an individual road.) But I think it's reasonable to extrapolate that a map can confer notability on the public transport network of a city. A corollary of this view is that a map could confer notability on the road network of a city, by the way, although it's not necessary for us to decide that issue here.— S Marshall T/C 10:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Stuart, I thought we agreed on temporary userfication, isn't that right? &#39;&#39;&#39;Adam mugliston&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Adam, while I'm open to the idea of userfication it is the decision of the closing admin not me that decides whether it will be userfied or not. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, right. Who is the closing admin, then? I thought it was you as you started the AfD. Adam mugliston  Talk  15:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:AFD, where it says "an uninvolved (i.e. one who has not participated in the deletion discussion) admin ... will assess the discussion". So, it can't be the nominator, who is very much involved (even if he had made no posts other than the original rationale). -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per Thesteve.  Rcsprinter  Gimme a message  19:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Stuart, after reading your reply to S Marshall, one questio comes to mind. How come no one nominates coach routes, with their own articles, for deletion. What's so notable about them? Adam mugliston  Talk  21:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * They are regularly look here at least 334 (also including route lists) have been taken to AfD with 145 being deleted and further 55 failing to reach consensus. And that's just ones that actually use the term "Bus Route" there may be others that use more specific terms. There are also many more that I can't list that have been redirected to operator or "buses in foo" style articles or have been Proposed for deletion and not contested or even simply Speedily deleted. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Stuart, these were examples of extremely notable pages. They have large hisotry sections, Do not give the whole timetable, summarize the route, everything's perfect! Adam mugliston  Talk  07:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is no argument that if this were a tram, subway or even trolley bus network then it would be seen as an inherently notable topic, being of significant importance and relevance to our encyclopaedic coverage of the settlement and a network of bus routes are equally important to a city. There was a comment a long way upthread regarding systems that had descended from streetcars. In the UK we call them trams, and Colchester had them between July 1904 and December 1926 (source: ), so it would seem that this system meets that suggested criterion for notability. Indeed were a tramway decommisioned today, it would not be encyclopaedic to ignore the bus network that succeeded it, WP:RECENCY would suggest that ignoring it because it happened 80 years ago would be equally unencyclopaedic. Stopping our coverage of the system at any arbitrary point between then and now would be equally unprofessional (unless it's just to split it over more than one article for length issues, c.f. History of rail accidents (1950-1999)). Thryduulf (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The other systems you mention are all permant features of the landscape, part of the fixed infrastructure. It is disingenuous to pretend that the modern bus routes have any real relationship to a tram system that ceased as long ago as 1926. A feeble excuse for trying to keep a stinking pile of original research.--Charles (talk) 09:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * And Adam, your signature is very bright and distracting. Would you mind toning it down a bit?--Charles (talk) 09:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not original research. It is all referenced,a lot with secondary references. My signature is suppose to be bright. Adam mugliston  Talk  09:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The bus routes will have a real relationship with the tram system - the current generation of routes are descended from the previous generation which are descended from the previous and so on. Unless there has been a radical shakeup of bus routes in the interim (I don't know, but it's not a common event in most British towns and cities) then you'll probably find that the system is not that different to how it was in 1930. There will have been expansions and contractions of the network, some numbers will have changed, and there will be minor changes here and there as road layouts change and business moves, etc. but these are all incremental things and if Colchester is like most cities you'll find that the core routes change very little, because people still need and want to get from A to B. Once you actually start to look at the facts rather than assumptions, you'll see that far from being transient entities public transport networks of all sorts have long histories of evolution - which is why people write books on them, such as the ones being used to reference this article. Thryduulf (talk) 09:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf, I agree. I have a source, where there is a list of the bus routes from 1933 and 1959. The numbers have all changed but the routes are very similar. Adam mugliston  Talk  09:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "The other systems you mention are all permant features of the landscape, part of the fixed infrastructure". Three things on that point. First, they are clearly not permanent features of the landscape, since they aren't there any more. Second, bus systems do also have infrastructure in place to support them - in this instance, the location of Colchester's main bus station is apparently some sort of controversy that attracts endless mind-numbing commentary and reporting in local and some regional newspapers (Adam, you should be able to find something on that if you look hard enough). Third, bus routes do also have infrastructure in place to support them along their lengths; things like specific kerb improvements installed at particular points, bus lanes ranging in length from a dozen yards to half a mile or so (some of which are not just repurposed sections of existing road; they have separate newly built sections of road, their own independently run sets of traffic lights, etc) and the electronic bus expected-arrival information boards which are now not just in the town centre but also increasingly present along the suburban lengths of the routes. These minor infrastructure improvements also garner some limited coverage in printed references. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf,There are no sources that are books and simply list bus routes - There are historical books that discuss the history of public transportation system in Colchester and I have no problems with an article like that being written similar to Buses in Bristol or Buses in London and including some detail about the route numbers and how the routes have changed (and I would similarly look for List of bus routes in Bristol to be merged into the Buses in Bristol article). Generally Physical Tram systems are major civil engineering works and raise a lot of secondary sourcing in their construction and dismantling - as bus routes are simply constructs with no physicality they don't create as many of these sources which is why this subject is sourced in a way than shows no notability for the existence of a pure list. Instead sources discuss all related subjects type/model of bus used in colchester over the years, key planning issues about route changes over the years and so on - Ideal material for a non list article but this article isn't it. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Stuart, this is going to be Buses in Colchester. I'm afraid it can't be done yet, because I don't think I can change the name during and AfD process, but that is what will happen. Adam mugliston  Talk  11:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Adam, you don't own the article so ideally consensus on this AfD should tend towards the goal that you are suggesting - that is the userfication of the material. Arguments for Keep rather than for Move/Userfy could lead to a consensus where if you wanted to userfy/move later it could be seen as against the consensus to keep it in the current format at the current location. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Adam's recommendation is probably best summarised as "keep and rename", I think. The "userfy" position was based on his earlier misapprehension that the AfD nominator controls how the discussion is closed.— S Marshall  T/C 12:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Precisely what I meant to say, might have not worded it properly. Stuart, I know I don't own the article. As S Marshall just said above this, I vote for Keep but Change Name/Format, as I think it's best to make it Buses in Colchester. With this were all in agreement, because you said yourself that would be notable. Adam mugliston  Talk  12:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep but rename/reformat to Buses in Colchester, which is where the real notability and encyclopedic potential for this topic lies. A list of present routes in the town is reasonable, but would be even better as a component of a larger prose article covering the extensive and well-documented history of bus operations in the town (at least one book, two pieces in Buses Magazine and plenty of local news sources cover it). Alzarian16 (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename to Buses in Colchester, require expansion of context, and get rid of the ridiculous sections after the list in the first section per all the comments above. There is no way the community can maintain the accuracy of all the routes and timetables that are in the article, and they are subject to such variation and change that we are very mucch likely to be spreading unverified misinformation in the near future. Direction to the websites where readers can find the time tables and actual stops on route would be much more preferable, Sadads (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy - until rewritten as Buses in Colchester as nom - The article creator has continued to work on the article during the AfD but all those edits have been to expand the detail of the list without establishing notability for the subject. The creator has on his own talk page stated that his only interest is in "the routes and timetables" and I have reservations that if moved instead of being userfied the same non-notable content will remain just in a different location. It is better that he be encouraged to rewrite as prose in his own userspace rather than continuing to focus on list formats. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This will be made into Buses in Colchester, as soon as the AfD process finishes, as I don't think it is allowed to change the name during an AfD process. As for the quote, my interest in routes also includes their history, which is far more notable. Adam mugliston  Talk  13:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is exactly my point, simply Moving the article will not make it better or more notable. Improving the content so that it meets our notability requirements is what is required. The history of the routes is only marginally more notable - so far I can see one source that would establish the history of 6 of the routes on your list back to 1959, 20 years after the Tram lines were lifted (of which there were only 4). That leaves something like 84 routes on your list with no notable history recorded in the source we have so far, and like Buses in Bristol the notable information is in the general history of bus travel in Colchester not solely about the history of bus routes. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename to buses in Colchester. Topic is clearly notable as per the mention of secondary sources already listed in this discussion. Whether the original article creator has been working effectively towards inclusion of those sources, or merely has them on order from a library, or has an excessive personal interest in routes and timetables, or whatever else, does not affect the topic's notability. The topic (buses in Colchester) is also covered in secondary sources such as here, here, here, here and others, in addition to the ones already mentioned. The extensive debates above where it's mentioned that bus routes in cities where the routes were established after 1990 are generally not notable, but bus routes in cities where the routes were based on an existing tramway system generally are notable, is a clear indication that notability is met in this case - Colchester's bus infrastructure is obviously much closer to the latter than the former, as has already been acknowledged in this discussion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with nom that article fails Wikipedia is not a Directory, Wikipedia is not a Travel Guide, Wikipedia Stand Alone List Guideline, Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information. If the article was more general in nature, fine, but it contains far too much detail and timetables that is totally un-encyclopedic as per WP:NOTDIR! -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL, but also more importantly, because it's a list of bus routes and this is an encylopedia. Just like I don't expect to see an article about benzethonium chloride pinned up at my local train station, nor do I expect to find local transport advice on the pages of Wikipedia. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► hemicycle ─╢ 15:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you read the article and this discussion? The article is in the process of becomming far more than a list of bus routes. Additionally, as shown by articles such as List of bus routes in London and List of bus routes in Greater Manchester such list can be encyclopaedic so deleting this "because it is a list of bus routes" would be like deleing benzethonium chloride "because it is a chemical compound" - just because some are not encyclopeadic does not mean that none are encyclopaedic. Thryduulf (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for assuming that I've commented here blindly, reading neither article nor discussion. However, I actually have read both, and – in common with the substantial number of people who have argued that the list should be deleted – nevertheless feel that the list should be deleted. I didn't notice you badgering the others, incidentally, so I guess I should be honoured to have an additional opportunity to comment. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► CANUKUS ─╢ 21:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The other people who have recommended deleting this list have expressed their opinion in terms of this article, rather than a general class of articles. From other AfDs it appears that some people see "List of bus routes" in the title and then recommend deletion on that basis. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought I might mention, that I have been working on the article in question, to make it more notable. The new History section at the bottom, explains how the tram system evolved and how it became a bus system. Adam mugliston  Talk  21:40, 30 April 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.