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


 * 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. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for inclusion. There have been no valid points made by the keep side to state how this article meets WP:NOTABILITY. To quote WP:ALLORNOTHING "The status of articles on other similar topics has no necessary bearing on a particular article. The process may have been applied inappropriately, people may not have seen the other articles yet, or consensus may have changed." Therefore the outcome goes to the argument made by the delete commenters: that this article does not carry encyclopedic value. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 03:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

List of bus routes in Sudbury

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete Unencyclopedic. WP is not a guide or directory. Also may be original research. A similar article List of bus routes in Downham Market has been deleted.--Charles (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No encyclopedic value at all. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep There is quite a lot of bus routes on this page. It is as good as List of bus routes in Stowmarket & Needham Market which people have tryed to delete (More than once) but failed. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 07:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Wilbysuffolk.  " Pepper "  
 * Keep, while Wikipedia is not a guide a directory neither is this list. Lists of public transport routes in settlements/areas with a significant number of bus routes have repeatedly been determined to be encyclopaedic. See the examples given in the discussion at Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Downham Market (note that I am currently waiting for the closing admin of that discussion to respond to my objections about the closure of that discussion, as the generic points about classes of articles were clearly shown to be incorrect and no reasons to delete that specific article were advanced other than "it's a travel guide", which was also rebuffed). The list needs a better intro, formatting work (e.g. an explanation of the colouring) and better referencing but these are not reasons to delete the encyclopaedic information about bus travel in the Sudbury area. Thryduulf (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The encyclopedic value is minimal. If this type of thing has been kept in the past, that situation could be revisited. It should carry no weight in this discussion other than being an example of "two wrongs don't make a right" --Stormbay (talk) 03:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If it has encyclopaedic value why are you wanting to delete it? If you look at established lists, like that for London for example, you will see that this list has the potential to be far more than it currently is. Just as we don't delete encyclopaedic articles for not been complete or perfect yet, we shouldn't delete lists for the same "failing". Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Minimal" in this case was meant to meant in the sense of "insufficient". Articles like this one and the debate its proposed deletion has generated makes me wish that there was some way to channel this effort into a more worthy cause. --Stormbay (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Are we going to start listing the times, too? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, because that would be a directory unlike this article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This is not a directory. A directory gives times. and street by street routing and locations of stops.  Bus routes are part of geography, and relatively stable, and this sort of summary coverage is  suitable for an encyclopedia   DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 9 March 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.