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


 * 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. If anyone want to transwiki this or any similar recently deleted page I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 12:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

List of bus routes in Oxfordshire

 * – ( 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 in Oxfordshire, 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 one source. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 11:25, 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) 12:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as not notable Davey 2010   Talk  13:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep All the county bus route lists should be kept, even if you delete ones for a smaller scale. It is part of the set and you would be destroying hundreds of hours of my time. Sick of the argument - notable, in scope, and sourced!  Rcsprinter  (chat)  @ 15:55, 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  21:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as impossible to maintain using third part reliable sources and non-notable. The Oxfordshire article needs a section on Transport probably, and the lead here could use some elements of that maybe. Unless an article on Buses in Oxfordshire were to be written as a prose article of course, which would then be an entirely sensible redirect target. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Unless meticulously kept up to date (which I am not willing to do), or are deliberately intended to describe a "snapshot" of the situation on a specific historic date, such articles are misleadigly unreliable. A quick glance is enough for me to know that the list is well out of date: several services are shown as operated by RH Transport, which ceased trading almost six months ago. It's even longer since the X2 route was transferred to Thames Travel. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's place a date on the page and then you're argument is invalid. Adam Mugliston  talk  20:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Experience within the Football wikiproject suggests that dates on articles is very limited in terms of verifying any form of accuracy. Articles tend to be edited, usually to update statistics, without updating dates (and usually by only updating one set of stats on the page when there are often a number of inter-related statistics). I would imagine the same thing would occur here - and, frankly, lists of bus routes which are, on occasions 18 months to 2 years out of date aren't all that useful to the project even when they aren't full of errors. This is the primary benefit of prose articles which don't include tables of stuff - the prose can be written in such a way as to ensure that dates are used sensibly to caveat any time sensitive information. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:59, 25 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  →   01:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:41, 26 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) 16:21, 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.