Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Peterborough (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Whilst the Keep !votes are in the majority, a number do have quite weak rationales and border on WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. However, there are enough well-argued comments on both sides that no consensus is a reasonable close, I believe. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

List of bus routes in Peterborough
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is a plane/bus/trainspotting article. The content of the table itself is largely unreferenced and is not encyclopaedic content - it belongs Wikitravel and/or Wikia, not here. Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 16:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Plane?! Trainspotting?! What are you on about? References can be sorted out, just need some time. Adam mugliston  Talk  17:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Article is in a kind of middle phase where the references are still being collected and the formatting sorted.  Rcsprinter  (talk)  17:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. "IDONTLIKEIT" is not a valid reason for deletion. The list is in better state than when it was last at AfD, with more sources. Although it's not completely referenced yet this is not a reason for deletion. If it were unreferenceable then that would be a reason for deletion, but as it's partly referenced then this is clearly not the case - anything that can't be sourced can be removed per normal editing, not deletion of the entire list. Formatting can also be improved, but that's not a reason to delete anything. Thryduulf (talk) 18:59, 21 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)
 * As I previously mentioned on a different AfD, I update the lists at regular intervals.  Adam mugliston  Talk  20:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not everything is about you. You might get run over by one of your precious buses next week.(I hope not though).--Charles (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * May I just remind you all quietly at this point of WP:PA?  Rcsprinter  (talk)  20:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If that extremely unlikely event would happen, which I doubt it will as I am very careful when crossing the road, you can then delete the page, although I'm sure there are people who would take over. Adam mugliston  Talk  20:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Pointing out that editors may not always be around for whatever reason is not a personal attack. Rcsprinter should strike through that comment.--Charles (talk) 08:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I find he certainly should not strike through that. Saying someone might not always be around is not a personal attack, I agree, but suggesting someone could die or be very seriously injured in the near future, is extremely rude and a personal attack. Adam mugliston  Talk  16:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Results 1–40 of 735 for List of bus routes in. I believe concensus thinks it is encyclopedic. The bar is not as high for lists as it is for the Articles to which they link. Navigation aid for a different method of navigation. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 04:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That search shows only 550 hits for me and your search is very poor as it returns every page on wikipedia which mentions or redirects to a list of bus routes - use the prefix: or intitle: search verbs to such as this to give more accuracy in your result (in this case closer to 90) and to guage consensus examine the results of a search limited to "prefix:Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion intitle:List of Bus Routes" where you will find that consensus is generally to delete, not to keep. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 05:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I checked it too and I got over 115 actual lists of bus routes, so I think they are quite notable and as already said, the standards are lower and GNG may not always apply (as possibly in this case) and per WP:5P, no one has to stick to all policies and guidelines. Adam mugliston  Talk  06:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * When you did that, I'm hoping that you discounted the 30 Odd that were created either by yourself or RCSprinter? That's right; about 1/3 of the articles you're using to justify "consensus" were created by 2 editors of which yourself are one? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory. Carrite (talk) 04:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep A list of bus routes is not a directory. Jclemens (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If it is not a directory why does it have a section of notes about the routes which would only be of interest to someone wanting to use the routes?--Charles (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether they are encyclopaedic or not might be debateable, but they don't make this a directory. The way forward when an article or list contains some material that may or not be encyclopaedic is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater but to discuss the matter with other editors on the talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I hear ducks quacking.--Charles (talk) 12:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh? Thryduulf (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Charles, I hope you're aware of what WP:DUCK points to, and consequently that you just accused an admin of six years with over 36,000 edits of sockpuppetry on the basis that he agrees with the position of some newer editors. Did you know that percentage-wise you have over ten time as much crossover with Stuart.Jamieson as Thryduulf does with any of the editors at the AfD? (It's clear that you aren't the same person, I'm just using this as an example of why your logic is nonsensical.) Perhaps the reason so many of these lists survive has something to do with your repeated failure to assume good faith with anybody you disagree with, a tactic well known to lose the support of neutral editors. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Beagel (talk) 10:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That guideline references 8 types of directories, the only one with possible relevance is number four "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business." and it's clear from the description associated with that entry that this detailing of the public transport of a large settlement is not a directory. The article would be better if it included historical as well as current information, but that is not a reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That entry's description is not exhaustive (hence it starts with "For example") but the examples it gives do mirror the situation here; A list of a TV station's programmes rather than a prose article discussing the station's programming, a list of a company's patent applications rather than a prose article discussing it's research activities, a list of Bus routes in a town rather than a prose article discussing how bus transport has affected/been affected by the town? In previous AfDs on lists of bus routes,assurances were made that NOTDIR would be complied with and the articles rewritten as prose - there has been no movement in that direction and indeed the small number of authors creating bus route lists (50% by only 4 editors) have continued with little notice of the advice given to them at AfD leaving non-notable, unreferenced, unencyclopeadic lists.  That consensus for deletion has not been reached before is testament to these lists' status as fancruft rather than their usefulness or benefit to the project. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Umm "In previous AfDs on lists of bus routes,assurances were made that NOTDIR would be complied with and the articles rewritten as prose" ??? Why  SHOULD a  'List of ...' be rewritten as an prose Article? Your talking about 2 different things that can exist side by side? Its Apples and Oranges and has NOTHING to do with why this 'List of' should be deleted. Honestly, I dont see how WP:NOTDIR can be brought into this conversation. The nearest thing on that Policy is the mention of 'current schedules', which this list does not have. If your going to make any sort of a comparison, please make it to a 'List-class' article ... like List of power stations. There is very little difference to that sort of List. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 01:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a world of difference between power stations and bus routes. Power stations are major civil engineering projects which are bound to be notable. Bus routes on the other hand are rarely notable. Open topped tourist routes in London or engineered guided busways yes but otherwise generally not. A list should only exist alongside a prose article if the components of that list are individually notable.--Charles (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, according to what some people said some time ago, individual bus routes aren't notable and so, they are put into a list. So they are in the list, because they're not indvidually notable. Adam mugliston  Talk  10:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Putting a bunch of non-notable things in a list doesn't make them collectively notable - which brings me back to my bus/train/plain spotters comment. Wikipedia is not a place for anoraks - that's why Wikia was established. This content simply doesn't belong on WIkipedia. --Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 10:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion, we'll see how many people actually think that. Adam mugliston  Talk  11:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As has been mentioned in many of the previous discussions, lists of bus routes are comparable to lists of tram routes, rail routes, etc, all of which are nearly universally accepted as notable. I've never understood why some editors are so vehemently against bus routes, nor why they insist on citing WP:NOTDIR when it gets pointed out every time that it's irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you say it is irrelevant? Within the 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) 14:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A transport-related list is not a travel guide. That's why.  Adam mugliston  Talk  14:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if you compare this list to actual travel guides for Peterborough (e.g. ,) you'll see this isn't one. Thryduulf (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There goes that duck again. Quack! Quack! I fail to see how an underdeveloped Wikia page can be cited as an example of anything and the other is just a collection of links rather than a real guide.--Charles (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not link duck and I did not write WP:DUCK. Anyone with a modicum of common sense will know that I was referring to "If it quacks like a duck etc." in relation to theb article looking remarkably like a bus travel guide. If you do not strike through your unjustified accusation of my making a personal attack I may well take this to ANI.--Charles (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Alzarian has no reason to strike through that (why do you keep asking people to do that?), as it was a polite note, to let you know about how duck could be taken. A bus travel guide, would contain a full or more detailed lists of stops and a timetable. This doesn't.  Adam mugliston  Talk  21:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, so you were applying the duck test to content... as WP:DUCK specifically advises shouldn't be done. As for striking through, where did I accuse you of making a personal attack? I suggested that one way of interpreting what you wrote was as an accusation of sockpuppetry, which isn't even similar. The personal attack came later, where you suggested that I didn't have a "modicum of common sense" in your last post. Take me to ANI if you wish, but the odds are against you: about 30% of ANI posts lead to a WP:BOOMERANG, and 40% to no action. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Nothing appears to have changed since the previous nomination. Since no further rationale for deletion is offered, I will repeat the reasoning I gave last time. The content clearly is encyclopaedic, as we have numerous "List of bus routes in..." articles. Most English counties have one e.g. List of bus routes in Essex, List of bus routes in Derbyshire. Peterborough being a unitary authority is equivalent to a county in terms of control of the numbering of bus routes, so it should have it's own article. An analogy would be Bristol which is also a unitary authority and has List of bus routes in Bristol. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:SAL do not mention buses or anything transport related, while WP:NNC clearly states most lists do not have to satisfy GNG. Adam mugliston  Talk  20:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Just like the last afd, this is a perfectly valid standalone 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" quotes frequently in bus route nominations but there is actually nothing in WP:DIRECTORY that bans list articles, nor list articles of bus routes. This isn't a "repositories of loosely associated topics" or anything of the like and this list is very discriminate.  I also notice the nom and the 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 again 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. --Oakshade (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * London has been nominated twice, but there are two things that would discourage me from nominating again in the short term;
 * Its already sourced to reliable secondary sources (which none of the other city, county or county towns are or can be) this makes it a notable subject unlike the other Bus Route lists.
 * Currently many of the routes are blue linked which per WP:SAL is a valid navigational use of a list article. A series of AfDs to establish the notability of those route articles should take place before the list its self is taken to AfD.
 * If any of the lists were capable of getting to a standard where notability of either individual routes or the list as a whole then there would be no need for an AfD. Yet time and time again, excuses as to why these lists dont have to comply with our notability guidelines, or why these lists are not directories (despite WP:NOTDIR #4 Wikilinking to a definition of a directory as any database of information which is more frequently read than updated - which is exactly what these lists are.)
 * Other projects exist which are better fits for this kind of material, but this material does not belong in an ecyclopeadia - try wikia or wikitravel. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought many people reading the lists is a good thing. And buses don't change daily or weekly and rarely monthly, so there's no need for it to be updated more frequently than read. Adam mugliston  Talk  10:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think any part of your statement actually stands up to scrutiny:
 * Surely every list article on Wikipedia is more frequently read than updated? List of sultans of the Ottoman Empire, a featured list (selected at random), certainly is.
 * There is a widespread consensus that most individual bus routes are not notable, which is why articles that list them don't have hundreds of blue links - many of the ones on the London list actually redirect back to the list. Not that navigation is the only reason to have a list - many lists contain information that is notable collectively but not individually (List of minor planets: 25001–26000 for example).
 * I disagree that "none of the non-London lists can be sourced to reliable secondary sources" (paraphrased from your comment at 10:53 today) - this was asserted at an AfD a few months ago (I can't remember which one) and it was quickly proven to be false. WP:BEFORE asks you to search for sources before nominating an article for being unverifiable, have you done this? Cambridgeshire County Council do not operate this service and they don't have any regulatory function for buses in Peterbourgh unitary authority, so I think it's clear that they are a reliable secondary source that verifies the information relating to that route. That took me 1 minute to find on my slow internet connection, so perhaps you'd like to retract your incorrect assertion?
 * Why would wikitravel want an encyclopaedic list about bus routes in Peterborough when they already have a travel guide that is far more useful for their target audience?
 * Just because a Wikia site exists for a topic doesn't mean that it doesn't also belong in Wikipedia - the existence of http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Main_characters doesn't mean List of Star Trek characters doesn't belong on Wikipedia.
 * "If any of the lists were capable of getting to a standard where notability of either individual routes or the list as a whole then there would be no need for an AfD". Actually, the notability of a list of bus routes in a sizeable, coherent geographic area (such as Peterborough) is clear - it's exactly the same notability as the lists of railway lines, stations, tramways, etc are in areas that are served by them. There is no deadline, and if people didn't have to keep defending the notability of the lists against the same arguments (proven incorrect each time) then they would be able to spend more time improving them.
 * Additionally, would you care to explain why this list is unencyclopaedic (I've shown that secondary sources exist, so don't bother with that argument) rather than why lists of bus routes in general are not notable. The latter has been clearly shown not to enjoy consensus every time it is brought up. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes all lists are more frequently read than updated, the difference between the list here (And similar Bus Lists) and lists like List of sultans of the Ottoman Empire and List of power stations is that the latter two are not simply databases - both you and Adam focused on the wrong term in that definition. Lists on wikipedia should either serve as fully featured articles of a notable collection whose elements may (or may not) be individually notable or they should serve as a navigational device - they should never exist simply to copy or create a new database hence we have notdir and hence it applies here as this is just a simple database (much as you all might want to wikilawyer around notdir).
 * The London Links redirect back to the list because of a cull which removed many of the non-notable routes and redirected them back to the list however removing individual notability does not make them collectively notable.
 * This was never proven to be false at AfD by anyone other than those wishing to keep - and neutral parties at the RfC disagreed that the sources given were secondary. There are two options here either a) Cambridge council is repeating verbatim content from a primary source which does not make it secondary as it is still the original primary source just repeated verbatim by a third party. or b) Cambridge council has compiled it's own database of bus information which makes it an independent primary source but still a primary source. For a Secondary source there has to be "generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information." that hasn't been shown in any of the sources presented at any of these AfD's and claiming that they secondary shows a clear misunderstanding of how sources are used in research. Without this there is no notability for this or any other bus route list article, by contrast Railways, Trams, Highways by being massive Civil Engineering Projects; generate vast quantities of secondary sourced material that is easily presented here.
 * Show me Encyclopaedic content within the list ( I still don't see it) it is a database that I have yet to see repeated in any Encyclopaedia (even Pears which is the most likely to include list like information of this sort) If wiki travel don't want it then it looks like you're limited to wikia but it's worth trying them first.
 * That is still a notable subject so deserves to be in wikipedia, a quick search reveals tons of books discussing the subject - however if something is not notable it should be removed from wikipedia and placed on wikia like thes lists of Bus Routes.
 * It's clear to you and a few others like you and the time period between challenges is regularly more than a month during which time no improvement ever occurs - with the same editors creating more of these lists (when challenged recently on the fact that one of the lists was unsourced the editor responded with; "no-one told me this list had to be sourced" despite having participated in several AfD's for other lists where sourcing was brought up as an issue.
 * In short this list in unencyclopaedic because it is not notable (having no secondary sources despite your claims) it forms a database of routes rather than an actual article failing WP:NOTDIR, it lists all travel route information with no consideration of which routes are notable failing WP:NOTTRAVEL, I see no evidence that these databases are useful to readers (in comparison to a properly written prose article about the bus network in Peterborough) and it is not useful for in-wikipedia navigation so it fails the Common selection criteria of Wikipedia:SAL, Also per WP:PRODUCT if these bus companies are notable then the routes hould generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy (in which case the list should be one of that company's routes not geographically broken down) If the company is not notable then the route should not be included unless the route itself has enough notability to create a article. Do you want me to go on? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Where not just an Encylopaedia. Tell what printed encyclopaedia, would have policies and guidelines printed in it. Or what one would allow humorous content in it. Or, most importantly, one that allows anyone to add content to it. We're more than a basic encylopaedia. We include many other things, that would have no place in an encyclopaedia. So, why have you got such a problem, with this very small proportion of Wikipedia, that doesn't disturb anyone and compared to other things that don't need to be here, takes up hardly any space? Why do you consider trams, planes, trains, boats to be encyclopaedic and not buses? Every single train route, even one that is not operational anymore, has it's own article. Yet, if I want to create a list of bus routes in a particular area, you want to delete it and I'm not even talking about having an article for every bus route. So, what have you got to justify that? Adam mugliston  Talk  20:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You make a mistake Adam, Our policies and guidelines are not printed in our Encyclopaedia, that's why they are retained in a separate namespace along with user content and humorous content. Please don't mistake my intentions either; many train lines may become notable because of coverage of the civil engineering behind it or the history of it - this does not make every service(route) on that line notable and we do not cover every service(route) on every line (even where services overlap on the same line) let alone individual trains. So comparisons with the train system are very difficult to uphold - the closest would be the assertion that the roads on which your bus routes run are notable but the routes themselves are not. For instance try searching comparable terms "Edinburgh Train" "Edinburgh Tram" "Edinburgh Bus" the first two return swathes of engineering, archaeological, Historical, News reports and Sociological documents on each of the systems. The latter returns some casual mentions in guidebooks and a rare local newspaper mention of a single route disruption - the routes have not been noted in any substantial way by any substantial work so we do not consider them a notable subject and we should not have an article on them outwith our coverage of Lothian Buses and First Edinburgh (which are independently notable). Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "we do not cover every service (route) on every line" - Yes, we do. Every single service is accounted for somewhere (in many places usually) on Wikipedia with its frequency. And how come, all train stations (even ones that only get 35 people using it a year) are on Wikipedia, yet a bus stop (which gets 10,000s of people a day), is not? Bus stops also get relocated, services change there. You're right, there aren't many sources on buses, but then we research it well and the information is here, easier for people to find. Why are buses so much worse in your mind? We have every, aeroplane service here, every tram service (with all stops and frequency), why not bus? Adam mugliston  Talk  07:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:PROVEIT - I know that our article on my local train line only mentions the line and the construction of a recent connecting line, Not detailing which routes use the original line, and which use the new connecting line. Nor does it detail the express routes with a reduced stop frequency so I find your claim that "Every single service is accounted for somewhere (in many places usually) on Wikipedia with its frequency." to be a broad generalisation at minimum and possibly a blatent falsehood. Equally I should point out that for a regular frequency day service (with hourly night service from 1-5am), you would still have to have a minimum of 120 passengers continually using the stop every 15 minutes to meet your 10,000s claim which while plausible doesn't happen at any stop in the UK (possibly a bus station, but such a station should be notable in its own right.) As for your last question - it's the wrong question ask why don't buses routes get the same coverage in any other media? Why have the BBC created several travel series about rail journeys and none about bus journeys? why for every "Speed" does Hollywood make a dozen "Unstoppable"s? Why are children fed a diet of Anthropamorphic train series such as Thomas and Chuggington but Anthropamorphic buses only ever play supporting roles in TV shows? If you can draw a sociological trend from those questions, perhaps you can understand why researchers and writers have failed to generate the same reliable secondary about bus routes that exist for tain lines? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Proof no.1
 * Proof no.2
 * Every train station has an article, with all the services calling and passing there with its frequency - no need for me to give links for that. As for busy bus stops, you really think any bus stop in Piccadilly Circus doesn't get 10,000 people a day? This is not based on any statistic, but as that I have been to London many times, I can assume: Let's use the stop on the north side of Regent Street, for buses towards Trafalgar Square etc. 11 day services use that stop. On average buses run 8 times an hour, meaning that that stop recives 88 buses an hour. Onto every bus, on average about 20 people will either get on or off. That's 88x20 = 1760 people an hour. Now daytime services run about 17 hours per day, so 1760x17 = 29920 people a day. 8 night services use the stop. These run on average 3 times an hour each, giving 24 services an hour. These services won't get more than 8-10 people using the stop per service. So 9x24 = 216 people an hour. Night services run for 7-8 hours a night. 216x7 = 1512 people a night. Now, add the two figures, 29920+1512 = 31432 people using the bus stop every 24 hours. I know these aren't particularly accurate, but I can't be far off. If you still don't believe I'll take the liberty of actually analysing every bus route stopping to give you a very accurate number, but reading the complete analysis could take a long long time. So tell me, how come a bus stop that 31,000 people use a day is not notable enough, but a station with 40 people a year is? Adam mugliston  Talk  13:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Great you show two examples and extend them, claiming that not only does every station article in the whole UK but every station covered on Wikipedia, even though we have plenty of articles that do not do this. Just in the UK I can think of Criccieth_railway_station, Edinburgh_to_Dunblane_Line, and Stirling_railway_station,_Scotland do not do this though there are probably plenty more. Also while you are right about the number of buses through Regent Street an average of 20 is a high turnover based on buses that hold around 45 seated passengers that means at least 25% of the seated capacity will get off and be replaced for every bus that stops at that stop - while this might hold true for some buses during a short while at peak times it isn't going to hold true on average and again I ask for evidence that 120 people actually use the stop during every 15 minute period of the day - this could be requested from Transport for London through FOI. Transport for London's own statistics suggest that averaged per route/stop less than 850 people get on/off at any single stop in any one day. That would make it 6-7,000 for Regent Street North on a single day at most and averages to only 3 or 4 people getting on/off each bus that stops there - but you can make the request if you want to prove me wrong. Either way a station that 40 people stop at is notable because researchers and historians have written works about it - a bus stop that could have 1,000,000 stopping there a day but unless people have actually made note of it in reliable sources then it's just a post in the ground with a sign at the top - possibly with a plastic/metal leanto attached. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Minor correction: the BBC have made some programs about bus routes. This documentary about London Buses route 31 and this episode of Excess Baggage about Swindon's route 49 last year spring to mind. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes individual programmes do exist (as they also do about trains, and Trams) but my point was generally the media is less interested in the bus as a form of transport (which is probably a shame as there are probably equally interesting stories to tell), even newspapers tend to make only passing mention of substantial bus network reorganisation but will heavily report on a new rail link or tram network being constructed. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment I have serious concerns over the reasons for raising this AfD, and the behaviour of some of those supporting it. As has already been noted, it was nominated for deletion only four months earlier, by Charlesdrakew, and no stronger or even different rationale for deletion has been provided than that occasion. More concerningly, this current nomination came exactly two minutes after Simple Bob intervened in an edit war on the article about colour schemes, where Charlesdrakew had already reached 3RR. Disagreements about colour schemes are not a good reason for frivolous AfD nominations as a form of retaliation. More concerningly still, the attempts to demean the article authors as "anoraks" (a derogatory term - look at a dictionary) or as "trainspotting" or "planespotting" is unseemly and not appropriate for a collaborative editing environment - trains and planes are not mentioned in the article at all, they have no relevance. Further, this comment could very well be seen as a personal attack, and at the very least its tone is entirely inappropriate. Responding to an expression of concern about it by demanding that expression of concern should be struck, followed by threats that "I may well take this to ANI", is an indication that Charlesdrakew at least has lost track of acceptable standards of behaviour. Replying to other editors with farmyard noises, as Charlesdrakew has also done more than once, is another hint that all may not be well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Farmyard noises?--Charles (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Demiurge was referring to this comment, where you do indeed respond with "farmyard noises".  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 08:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair point. I had forgotten that. I don't really think of ducks as a farmyard animal, associating them more with ponds and rivers. He did say more than once though which I am pretty sure is not true. My attempt to introduce a little humour into the debate was wasted on the people here.--Charles (talk) 08:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that might be your idea of humour and not the fault of people here. Adam mugliston  Talk  09:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Frivolous AfD as explained above. Manual of Style (stand-alone lists) makes clear that standalone lists are acceptable; this is clearly not a directory, and it is (partly) sourced. There are also very serious concerns about the motivations for the AfD and the behaviour of those arguing for deletion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The last AfD closed on "No Consensus" rather than "Keep", as such no Stronger or Differrent rationale needs to be provided as the effect is similar to normal relisting in order seek further consensus on the raised objections - WP:BEFORE is specific about checking that the raised objections were addressed in the previous AfD as they were not in this case, there is no issue. Bob was not involved in the last AfD and is well within his rights to question the existence of the article independent of the colour issue. wikt:anorak is not derogatory, and trying to present it as such is clutching at straws, it is slang and means someone obsessed with a subject but not as a term of offense (I use it often as a personal show of pride in my own knowledge/abilty) Having regularly had to deal with Bus Spotters in my line of work I appreciate that they do exist, but I also understand that for others plane/train spotter are more recogisable terms for transport fans and should be seen in the nomination as comparable to buses. The comment is meant to identify this list as one of limited general interest I'm not going to comment on the in AfD behaviour of any participantants but leave that up to the closing admin to consider alone, but I will say that your delete rationale is questioning the behaviour of all editors who vote delete and that may be seen as a personal attack.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 05:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - per Demiurge 1000 and WP:5P. Per 5P, we do not have to stick to all rules, as they can be interpreted in many ways. My interpratation of for example WP:NOTDIR, doesn't have anything to do with buses, but for others it might. Adam mugliston  Talk  07:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I've spent the last few days reading up about these bus route articles, from the AfDs closed as "No consensus" earlier a couple of months ago to the recent VP discussion. There does not appear to currently be any consensus regarding these articles and there appears to be a small group of people pushing for them to be deleted. I feel I should challenge a few of the salient points here.
 * To my reading, these articles do not fail WP:NOTDIR as they are not directories. They do not include full lists of streets served, or all stops. You could not use this to look up times, schedules or as a substitute for information from the bus company.
 * They certainly do not fail WP:NOTTRAVEL. This isn't information you would find in a travel guide, which would include recommendations, prices, times, regularity and reviews of the service. It's quite simply not a travel guide at all.
 * Per WP:Five Pillars, a summary of Wikipedia's most important principles, Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia but also a gazetteer. This means that it should include information about places and their infastructure, such as bus routes.
 * The notability guideline we should be concerning ourself with is WP:LISTN, which states that the list should be notable as a whole, the items need not be. There is more than one secondary source on this article which discuss the topic, so I think it does pass notability.
 * It is important to evaluate the articles on a case by case basis, though nominating so many in one go and not grouping is not helpful. I'm also unimpressed by some of the borderline personal attacks and certainly uncivil comments I've seen on this thread. I ask that due consideration is given by all parties to attempt to diffuse the situation.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * question above you claim "There is more than one secondary source on this article which discuss the topic, so I think it does pass notability." Did you actually check the sources? is about national transport strategy and only makes passing mention of Peterborough,  (and associated pdfs) is about national transport strategy and provided passenger statistics about 12 routes in Peterborough there is no depth of coverage from which notability of all the routes could be drawn - not only that the source doesn't appear to support the statements it used to reference. That leaves two passing mentions in local press about one or two routes. There are no secondary sources here that suggest this collection is notable by any definition of notability that we use on Wikipedia specifically not by LISTN or CORP (if routes are taken to be a service provided by a bus company). At the same time I disagree with your assessment of a directory - If I look at the directory in an office block it can range from giving me the name of a business and what room its in to a complicated listing giving floor, section, room number, telephone number, what business sector they trade in, etc. To say that this is not complex enough or detailed enough to form a directory suggests a false concept of what a directory is, WP:NOTDIR may give examples of more detailed directories but it also links to a definition of a directory that is simple which this list is.  Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The definition of "directory" you seem to be using defines every list on Wikipedia, and as you are not claiming every list on Wikipedia should be deleted per WP:NOTDIR you're going to need to find a definition that actually discriminates between those lists you want deleted and those you don't. Thryduulf (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually no - every list on Wikipedia does not fall into this criteria - Specifically featured lists are expected to be composed of Prose so if they reach that standard then they would not fit the definition of simple databases, as are other Prose articles on multiple subjects such as List of minor characters in Dilbert. Similarly any article that serves another encyclopaedic function such as Navigation, Disambiguation, and Categorisation can be excluded as they are not article content. Once you exclude those sort of lists the aren't many left, but you then have to exclude those that are spun out from prose articles such as Discographies and Filmographies which exist only where they are WP:UNDUE within the article on the artist and they exist solely to detail content from the parent article. The end result is very few and the regular reason for deletion at AfD of lists of non-notable Wind Turbines, Hotels, Cinemas, and Bus Routes. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * My understanding of a directory (which is similar to Wiktionary) is a complete (or attempted complete) listing of data, for the express purpose of making information easy to look up (eg a phone book or a bus time table). I wouldn't call these articles directories any more than I would the other lists on wikipedia (for example Filmographies or Discographies), as Thryduulf points out. It's much closer to a stand-alone gazetteer listing and if it can be shown to be notable as a set then I'm certain it should be included in the 'pedia.
 * As for the sources, The Times is a national newspaper, which is discussing a pilot scheme trying to get people to use more buses, including the Peterborough area. A government report, which is about national strategy, but discusses each area individually. And two local reports discussing the Peterborough bus routes. I'd say that's 4 sources which are discussing in more depth than just mentioning. What's more, I have a hunch (though no evidence) that specialist bus magazines, which I know exist, probably discuss the different routes - not sufficient on it's own, it is worth noting.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 17:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's good you point out Filmographies or Discographies because on the whole policy is to include these lists within the biography of the artist (as we do with lists of products/services in relation to corporate entities such as Bus Companies)we only spin them out if their inclusion in the parent article is detrimental to that article (as happens for artists with prolific careers) as such I would have no problem with route information existing within the operator's article just not as a standalone directory.
 * The pilot scheme was to reduce car use and while increase Bus transport was part of that the article itself is focused strongly towards walking rather than Bus transport hence the title "Feet, Feet, Feet" and the focus on the increase in walking (greater than the increase in bus use), then we have the report - even if it did discuss all the routes in Peterborough as a collective group (it doesn't just a small subset of the routes) does any single study alone (particularly where the study focuses on the locality in order to draw conclusions about the whole nation) give notability to the sector it studies? This study for instance also discusses Cycle Routes within Peterborough, walking routes within Peterborough, Car sharing within Peterborough, School Buses within Peterborough all of these could be considered to be gazetteer material (yet I only know of one specialist gazetteer that covers Bus routes where cycle and pedestrian routes are more likely to be found in general gazetteers) if an article about footpaths in Peterborough comes to AfD, would you vote the same way for keeping it, based on this same source? Out of interest, do you know why is it that we have so many of these lists for English Counties and towns but have nowhere near as much coverage for the rest of the world generally (although exceptions exist) only ever covers major population centres - in fact I can only see the UK counties/towns/cities and two lists of Estonian Bus Routes (Tallinn and Tartu) that have metropolitan populations of less than 1,000,000 - all other bus route list articles are at least over this which just serves to highlight how these articles stand out. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:48, 28 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.