Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Petersfield & Bishop's Waltham


 * 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   keep. Merge may be a viable option, discussion should continue on the talk page. Courcelles 03:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

List of bus routes in Petersfield & Bishop's Waltham

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Wikipedia is not a place for travel guides - that is what Wikitravel is for. Nor is it a place for minority interests such as bus/plane/train spotters - that is why the foundation set up Wikia. Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 11:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Revising my nomination for those who may not have read the specific 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) 14:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment A simple list of bus routes is neither a directory or a Travel Guide. Re WP:NOTDIR. A list of bus routes is not "Genealogical entries", "The White or Yellow Pages", "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business", "Sales catalogs", "Changelogs or release notes", "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations", "A complete exposition of all possible details" nor really a "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics", so WP:NOTDIR does not have any points within that a list of bus routes would contravene. Re WP:NOTGUIDE, I won't list all the points again, but the only one that could be argued a list of bus routes is against is point 2, "Wikipedia is not a Travel Guide". However, this is referring more to using Wikipedia as a sort of holiday travel guide with tourist destinations, restaurant, hotel or venue as it says in the text. You wouldn't use a list of bus routes to actually plan a trip out on the bus, therefore a list of bus routes is not a Travel Guide. You'd need the complete bus timetable for it to be anywhere near a travel guide. Arriva436talk/contribs 18:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. Adam mugliston  Talk  11:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - And WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason for a keep. Show me one substantial, independently published source for ANY of these Original Research Bus Route Cruft pieces, please. Carrite (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge into a revised List of bus routes in Hampshire, a county-wide article to match with all of the other List of bus routes in England. Arriva436talk/contribs</b> 12:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a compendium of popular culture. It is not a universal list of bus routes, nor should it be. There are places on the internet where this information may be rapidly obtained, riders do not and should not be coming to Wikipedia for this information. Carrite (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK then, if you actually check, you will find that "There are places on the Internet where this information may be rapidly obtained" is completely wrong, and that actually this information is very hard to find all in one place, especially for Hampshire-wide information. Unless of course you did actually check before making such a statement, and you can give a link that will show the same information in a similar format...? Besides, why should information about buses not be included on Wikipedia, when 1) there is no policy against it and 2) There is far more information about train, ferry and plane services, meaning without buses there's an odd hole in coverage? <span style="font-family:Zapfino, Segoe Script;"><b style="color:#FF0000;">Arriva436</b><sup style="color:#800080;><b style="color:#800080;">talk</b>/<b style="color:#800080;">contribs</b> 19:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, so you're saying this should be kept since it's valid original research that can't be found elsewhere?!? Lists of bus routes are pretty much a textbook definition of unencyclopedic local cruft. Carrite (talk) 03:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If lists of bus routes were "textbook definitions of unencyclopaedic local cruft" then they would be mentioned, explicitly or implicitly, in at least one of the pages we have giving examples of things that Wikipedia is not for. However, they don't appear in such lists because they are neither unencyclopaedic nor cruft - unless you are going to present any evidence to the contrary? Many of these list of bus route articles are sourced, none of the others has been shown to be unsourceable. Just because there is no single place on the internet that gives easily accessed encyclopaedic coverage of a subject does not mean that we should delete our coverage of the topic - indeed our job is to be that single, easily accessed provider of encyclopaedic coverage. Thryduulf (talk) 11:26, 31 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) 20:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete As well as the many reasons already listed, I defy anyone to find a single reliable source that links Petersfield and Bishops Waltham for anything, let alone bus services, so the aggregating = original research. Nuttah (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Just being the list without having excessive timetable details makes this  a normal article. It is not indiscriminate or over-detailed unless it starts listing the detailed routes. I am unable to understand the opposition to these articles if someone wants to maintain them. I similarly am unable to see that they are more functional in a combined article, though iI would not rule that out as a possibility if it would satisfy the objections. The important thing is the content, not the division  into articles.    DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - nominating 8 "list of bus routes in ..." LISTS, with 'rubberstamp' rationals, separately was pointless. If your rational was the same in all of them, why not do a single AFD for the Group of them. All my keep reasons are stated in the currently ongoing Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Peterborough (2nd nomination) Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a perfectly notable article which just needs a little expansion, is all. And cleanup.  Rcsprinter  (talk)  12:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a perfectly encyclopaedic list. Yes it needs references, but given the references present in the other Hampshire bus routes articles it seems very likely that such sources exist. Please see Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Peterborough (2nd nomination) for a detailed refutation of the arguments that WP:NOTDIR disallows lists of bus routes. Thryduulf (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That does not answer the original research concerns though. The two towns in question have nothing in common apart from being at the opposite ends of one 20 mile long bus route. Elsewhere the original editor has admitted that he has constructed the groupings for his convenience rather than for any logical or referable purpose. This is vastly different to the Peterborough article where at least you can say there is a logic in grouping the routes by the unitary authority that would be responsible for subsidising underused services. Nuttah (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If that is the case then the articles should be split into separate areas and/or merged with the coherent area(s) of services that they are part of. It is not a reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I may have made a mistake in grouping. I agree the Bishop's Waltham section should probably be merged into Eastleigh & Romsey, while Petersfield could be merged into Alton, Bordon and Tadley, remade into Alton, Bordon and Petersfield, with a new article created Tadley & Newbury or Tadley could be incorporated into Basingstoke or Reading (which I am planning on creating).  Adam mugliston  Talk  17:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're still not understanding WP:OR. You don't get to make up how they are grouped, it has to be based on a logic, that can be referenced. Sticking to the tier of local government that is making subsidy decisions would probably provide references as they will discuss bus services in x. For Hampshire that is Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton councils. Nuttah (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stop accusing me of not understanding things, as you seem to be suggesting I am some sort of idiot who can't read and understand.  I am very logical in the way I group the towns, they are all neighbouring towns that each have at least 5-7 bus routes, some of them running between either 2 or 3 of the towns the list is about. I can easily offer a operator or council map showing the routes and the proximity of the towns, yet still you haven't commented on that.  Adam mugliston  Talk  19:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if you can show a map with the routes on - you have to show that someone other than you, in an independent reliable source, has treated that group of routes as a single entity. You CANNOT invent groupings to suit you. Nuttah (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, then do you think a list of bus routes in just say Petersfield, would survive?! And you haven't even been commenting on the content of this article, which is what is the main part of this and to what everyone else is relating to. A title really doesn't matter, as long as it quickly sums up what's inside. Adam mugliston  Talk  20:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you reference a Petersfield article? Back to WP:OR again - it is one of only three policies on Wikipedia and is very clear 'To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented.'. For your articles to be not OR they must be based on independent reliable sources discussing bus routes in area x - not routes grouped together based on your opinion, that is OR. I've already given a way out of this, the top tier of local government will discuss buses by area as part of the subsidy process, thus providing independent references - in the county of Hampshire there are three top tier councils, Hampshire and the unitary authorities in Portsmouth and Southampton. Nuttah (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hampshire is too big an area for one list of bus routes. I have asked you a question before: Will a list of bus routes in only Petersfield survive? I don't think so, it's too short. That is why I need to group them in some way. All it is, is two towns in one article, each having their own seperate lists. I think this conversation might as well end, as you seem to be rather stuck on saying OR. Adam mugliston  Talk  07:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason I keep on about OR is simple, following the rule is not optional. You must source the groupings, if you cannot the policy is clear 'If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it'. However, as you will not accept this we will let AfD run then take the suspect articles to the OR noticeboard to get an opinion on the way forward. As for Hampshire being to big, London with many more routes serving very many more people gets by perfectly well list one list Nuttah (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Like with the other bus list afds, 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.  --Oakshade (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 'major bus system in a major city'. I don't think so, Petersfield has a population of just over 13,000 and that's twice as big as Bishops Waltham. Nuttah (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You do have a point about the populations and I admit, just as all of these afd's were cut-and-paste jobs, my input here was almost the same. But the comments about the validity of the bus routes list remains. --Oakshade (talk) 07:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would question that the comments are still valid. Bus routes may be a suitable topic, splitting them down into ever smaller groupings, especially into groupings that have no connection and have no reliable sourcing available makes them indiscriminate. Nuttah (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per my comments I disagree with the nomination statement. The article does require sourcing though   WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:20, 27 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.