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


 * 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. The consensus here is that this does not belong on Wikipedia as a stand-alone page. If someone wants to merge or transwiki any of it I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 22:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

List of bus routes in Worcestershire

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced cruft & bus-spotter magnet. Wikipedia is not a directory and not a travel guide - this sort of stuff belongs on the new Wikivoyage start, not here. Bob Re-born (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This collection of non-notable routes does not constitute a notable subject for an encyclopedia. It failsWP:N, WP:V, WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. People should go to bus company websites for information on catching buses.--Charles (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment This might be a wider issue as there are dozens of similar articles for the UK. I personally think the suggestion to move this stuff to Wikivoyage is an excellent idea, precisely because it is verging onto the territory of a travel-guide and I don't see what's particularly notable about bus routes, but it would make sense to expand this discussion to include the other pages which can be found through Template:Bus routes in England. Nev1 (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Great suggestion - I'd love to see the back of all of these articles and if others also think moving them to Wikivoyage is the right thing then I guess the next step is finding out exactly where is the best place to hold the discussion. What about Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buses as a starter? (I'm guessing the spotters will be happy to move the content as they'll have somewhere new to stand their flasks and hang their anoraks.) --Bob Re-born (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing they won't be happy and I would prefer a broader and more neutral venue such as the village pump or AN requests for comment.--Charles (talk) 10:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - concise, factual, valid list and part of a larger number of lists for bus routes for various counties around the UK. To delete this would leave a gaping hole in a growing and in progress encyclopaedic series of list's. Not sure why the nominator is quoting WP:V as can very easily be reliably sourced. The list makes no attempt to be a travel guide so why WP:NOTTRAVEL is also being quoted is beyond me! Religious articles attract religious nutters, but we don't go deleting them :-) Jeni ( talk ) 23:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm less concerned about sourcing. The current footnote is a deadlink, but is easily replaced. The material can certainly be be verified, so I don't see an issue there. Whether it's something that belongs in an encyclopedia I'm not so sure. Your point about deleting this leaving a hole rather suggests that this needs to be considered together with the other lists of bus routes. With the recent launch of Wikivoyage that seems like the perfect place for information like this. I vaguely remember a similar AfD what feels like a lifetime ago, but there's no harm in checking (and challenging) consensus. Nev1 (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is theoretically possible to verify the information line by line with inline citations for each route but to do so is days of work and very difficult to keep up to date. User:Blue Square Thing recently did this exercise on a much smaller list of routes and concluded that it was basically a pointless exercise because the source material is constantly changing. This does not make for a stable encyclopedia and is just not something we should be doing. We have seen promises before to keep these articles sourced and up to date but in practise it soon lapses when the spotlight is turned off.--Charles (talk) 10:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I think Jeni sums that up absolutely perfectly - better than I could rant.  Rcsprinter  (Gimme a message)  @ 23:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you even read WP:NOTTRAVEL before posting? Let's look at the content together shall we?
 * Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc. Also, while travel guides for a city will often mention distant attractions, a Wikipedia article for a city should only list those that are actually in the city. Such details may be welcome at Wikivoyage instead.
 * Since you quoted the page, would you care to point out which bit suggests this article should be deleted? Jeni  ( talk ) 09:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in the above quote to indicate that such lists should be included and much to indicate that they should not. Lists of non-notable bus routes are essentially the same as lists of hotels or lists of pharmacies. They are all just lists of commercial services which can be found in probably more up to date form on the internet. Such lists would be just as useful but wholly unencyclopedic. Claiming that something should be included because it is not specifically excluded is Wikilawyering.--Charles (talk) 10:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Transwiki to Wikivoyage. This information is unencyclopedic. A list of current bus routes is only useful to someone looking for travel information, and that information is appropriate for Wikivoyage, not an encyclopedia. An article discussing the history of bus travel in an area could be encyclopedic. --Michig (talk) 07:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia should keep the : as I am a bus Information/route information enthusiast, as I like collecting up to date information on buses and then up dating the information on to the appropriate Wikipedia page in this case the :. -Omnibus53 (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, Transwiki (to WikiVoyage or Wikia) or otherwise remove the article from Wikipedia. The reasons already given, lack of notability, concurrency, Wikipedia not being a Travel Guide. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-encyclopedic and failing the GNG and being almost impossible to keep up to date and reliable. By all means send the content somewhere else - and then write a prose article on buses in Worcestershire which has lots of interesting historical information in it and which talks in relatively egneral terms about the current routes and service as well. That's what wikipedia should be about. It's doable - trust me, it just needs someone to do it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If there is an article about the history of bus travel in the county, would a list be appropriate to include within the article, or would it be split to a separate page because of article length (as is often done with discographies in music articles)? Peter&#160;James (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Why would you include an almost impossible to maintain list when a prose summary is possible and, many would argue, preferable? It's certainly more able to be sourced and to comply with the GNG. This might give examples of important notable routes but mentioning every route would seem to me to be counterproductive in many ways. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * A list of bus routes would be relevant to a prose article just as a discography, also written as a list, is to a musician's article. My question was partly in response to Michig - for context, see discussion at Talk:CKY discography, where it has been suggested that a discography doesn't have to separately meet the notability guideline - but also as a general question for participants in this discussion. Peter&#160;James (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Current bus routes are no more relevant to an encyclopedia than bus routes from the 1960s, and neither is really relevant to an encyclopedia. A summary of the areas covered would be relevant to an article on a bus company, the routes themselves change and get renumbered regularly, and the minutiae of bus route X changing to bus route Y when it changed to take in housing estate Z would be far too excessive in detail. A list containing only current bus routes is only really relevant if you're looking to travel by bus, which is what a travel guide is for, not an encyclopedia. --Michig (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Former routes don't belong in a travel guide, and maybe current routes don't: one list has already been deleted here and moved to Wikivoyage and is now likely to be deleted there; even if editors of these articles joined Wikivoyage the lists could still be as controversial as they are here. Peter&#160;James (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * An interesting comparison. I think there are a probably a number of significant differences:
 * discographies are usually fairly short - having just checked on the Bruce Springsteen, Grateful Dead and Cliff Richard pages (three of the more voluminous back catalogues I think)
 * discographies don't usually have repeated entries
 * discographies are fixed. Once created the record doesn't disappear, change it's route, get cancelled, change stops and so on. A record's a record once it's made. It's the dynamic nature of bus routes that I have one of my biggest problems with (after the lack of meeting GNG imo)
 * the items within discographies tend to be notable in themselves - per WP:NALBUMS for example. Given the lack of third party reliable sources with substantial (i.e. non-routine) coverage, I'd very strongly argue that most individual bus routes lack obvious notability whilst, for example, Darkness on the Edge of Town has very clear notability (as would the subject of Springsteen's discography in itself I'd say). Perhaps most importantly there are very clear consensus guidelines that articles about albums and so on have to meet the GNG in terms of their notability; that consensus is clearly lacking in terms of bus articles - which has the rather bizarre effect of meaning that a commercially available album might not have an article but a bus route in a small town in the UK might get it's very own article.
 * Interesting comparison and clearly raises some issues that need to be looked at in general terms to try to establish what is and isn't notable. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If the bus routes lists are kept, former routes could be included, either in prose or list, as they are in List of bus routes in London (although that currently has "Please do not include services that are withdrawn before 1994, this list will be too long." at the top of the list). I'm not sure what you mean by "repeated entries"; there may be some, such as in List of bus routes in Cambridgeshire where the Peterborough article was merged, but it's likely that cleanup, and standards would be needed - I can't find a relevant guideline or manual of style. Bus routes can be notable, although most are probably not, but it's the same in discographies, with singles that don't chart, and non-notable compilation albums - this discussion has also reminded me that there's a category, Category:Record label discographies, where many of the articles are long, and often incomplete and unreferenced . Whether the route lists are maintainable depends on whether there are people who maintain them, and there seems to be more success there than with some BLPs, where the problems are often more serious than lack of updates. Peter&#160;James (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * By repeated I meant that there can be several with the same number within an area - depending on how the area is defined amongst other things.
 * I agree that bus routes can be notable per the GNG. For an uncharting single I'd expect coverage in reliable third party media. So, for example, I have a book dealing with the early career of Runrig. It talks in detail about the 1984 releases of Dance called America and Skye - and there were reviews in the West Highland Free Press too. Third party sources exist - it is verifiable that they were released and where they charted. I'm not convinced I see that for the 22a in Norwich. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If several routes have the same number, they are not repeated entries, just as articles about different people, places or albums with the same name are not duplicates - bus routes can be distinguished by destination and operator just as Peter Gabriel (1977 album) and Peter Gabriel (1978 album) can be distinguished by cover and track listing. Maybe some routes have not been mentioned in books or newspapers, but its the same with some records in discographies. Peter&#160;James (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, they could, although in general they aren't though. Perhaps more importantly the standard defence given as to why these lists should remain on wikipedia is that "they're useful" - very rarely, they're notable because they meet the GNG and here are the sources to meet it. Repeated bus numbers make such lists less useful, not more. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Repeated numbers, where they are separate routes, make the list more useful, particularly as the same routes can appear in multiple timetables (for example routes 42 and 43 in Worcestershire). They are not in the list, but only because the edits were reverted as unsourced. Peter&#160;James (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What does "useful" mean in this context? If it means useful to someone planning a bus journey then it is well outside of our remit per WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTDIR. People should not be coming to Wikipedia for travel information. If it means useful to someone researching the history of a particular number bus route they will want to use more reliable primary sources as there are rarely inline citations to verify a particular route. Such citations could in theory be added but in practise they rarely are and I do not think they are likely to be.--Charles (talk) 11:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Transwiki I agree that a list of bus routes does not seem to belong on Wikipedia and probably should be Transwikied to Wikivoyage. However, considering this article in isolation seems to be a witch hunt against people in Worcestershire. Similar lists exist through Wikipedia for anywhere else in the country. Maybe it should be retained for now whilst a wider decision to delete them all is considered? On a distasteful point, I’m not a bus spotter myself but it seems that there are some people requesting deletion who feel they have some kind of a monopoly of integrity when it comes to hobbies. To refer to bus spotters as anoraks, using flasks and using unprofessional descriptive language (crap) are the words of bullies. Those words could easily be aimed at anyone who has an in depth knowledge about anything - including those very same people themselves. Let’s keep out prejudice, please.-Youngmangonewest (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I thank you for your words about referring to bus spotters (one of whom I seem to be considered because I have an interest..?) as being the sign of a bully, but with regards to your actual !vote, there's a tiny problem: Wikivoyage don't consider bus route lists to be notable enough in their scope, and so they would be deleted. As anyone who's actually read the discussion at the buses WikiProject talkpage would know. However, I consider them perfectly OK for wikipedia. People such as Charles, Stuart and Bob do seem to have rather a hobby for persecuting bus articles, especially near Worcestershire, it would seem. That's not so much in the best interests of the encyclopaedia, as we all should be thinking of, and Assuming Good Faith.  Rcsprinter  (state the obvious)  @ 12:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a repository for bus route listings. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not a policy or guideline - the closest is WP:NOTDIR, but it links to WP:SALAT for clarification; a list can encyclopedic content as part of coverage of the bus services in an area, and WP:CSC mentions that lists can be created "because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles". Peter&#160;James (talk) 09:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an appropriate level of coverage, as long as there are people here willing to maintain the articles.  DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That depends on what you mean by "maintained". There are usually people ready to add remove routes as they change and add original research and unencyclopedic trivia about fares, frequencies, temporary changes etc. Properly referenced changes with inline citations are rare. The lists soon turn into unverified blogs without constant reverts. These lists put a heavy burden on editors like myself who try to maintain articles to Wikipedian standards.--Charles (talk) 09:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Tbh Charles, that's what you think. Your are entitled to an opinion, but to say that one of the lists would turn into a blog without constant reverts is complete rubbish. As I know only too well, you are constantly reverting perfectly fine edits to update the odd route or two. They are a good Wikipedia standard - I don't know what you mean by wikipedian standards. I ask for evidence of a bus route list that you think has turned into a blog. Give me a link to one instead of just stubbornly accusing. Although, I will let you have that the majority or sparsely sourced, but that isn't a sole valid reason for deletion.  Rcsprinter  (gas)  @ 14:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Lack of reliable secondary sources is a very valid reason for deletion per WP:GNG.--Charles (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The main issue here is whether bus route lists are encyclopaedic. In one sense, maybe they are because we can look them up and “find out things about them”. On the other hand, the view of the purist seems to be that they do not meet Wikipeaedian standards. That maybe so but why were any of them allowed years ago to start in the first place? Maintenance:-personally, I am not alarmed that someone may add “trivia” about bus fares or the like. It hardly seems a sin. As the father of a disabled son who derives great pleasure out of adding updates he finds, there are clearly more important subjects for editors to police. Attempts to make the Worcestershire list more robust in terms of referencing and sourcing have been deleted by editors, which I find disheartening. These were made to address at least some of the understandable concerns there are about verifying information. They may not be good enough but a little encouragement to improve them is better than the seemingly “WikiNazi” attitude taken toward only deleting this list and the West Midlands one. Shouldn’t the same approach be taken against all other lists of bus routes?Youngmangonewest (talk) 12:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete we are not a travel guide, and I don't think this is appropriate for Wikivoyage either. Wikivoyage is not a dumping ground for tangential travel-related cruft. --Rschen7754 11:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I find your comment to be most rude. These lists may be poor quality to you but don’t assume that your interests in life are any more worthy. I see that the word “cruft” is merely computer jargon but I’m not in the habit of stereo-typing people who have an intense interest in computers. That said, I am not entirely against your view that Wiki is not a travel guide but I would just ask why such lists have been on here for so long in the first instance and why is similar guide information about trains and planes available? I also don’t understand why the lists for Worcestershire and West Midlands are the only ones being proposed for deletion – see my note above.Youngmangonewest (talk) 12:42, 3 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.