Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in the West Midlands county


 * 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) 22:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

List of bus routes in the West Midlands county

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability. Sourced only from an open wiki on Wikia which shows no sources or page history. Wikipedia is not a mirror site for unregulated open wikis. It fails our policies on not being a directory and not covering travel. Fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOT. Charles (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Suspect no effort has been made per WP:BEFORE to find reliable sources for this article, as there are plenty out there that should replace the Wikia ones... will do this myself in the morning. WP:NOTTRAVEL wouldn't apply here... good look using this as a travel guide, as it's (rightfully) missing things like frequencies, which *are* encyclopaedic! 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 Jeni  ( talk ) 23:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep What she said.  Rcsprinter  (babble)  @ 23:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 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  →   00:13, 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 ) 09:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I see nothing in the above text to indicate that lists of non-notable bus routes should be included. They are equivalent to lists of hotel addresses which never would be included. Something not being specifically mentioned does not mean it should be included by default.--Charles (talk) 09:54, 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)


 * Keep It is encyclopaedic, like for each railway station there is a list of services that operate there. Also these lists exist in some part on the Bus Operators page. My result is keep but we need to come up with a good reference way to avoid no references or 1000 references. Do we go through every Airport article deleting what airline routes go there? Or Airline destination pages? Mark999 (talk) 13:46, 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) 16:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, Transwiki (to WikiVoyage or back to Wikia where this evidently came from) or otherwise remove the article from Wikipedia. The reasons already given, lack of notability, concurrency, Wikipedia not being a Travel Guide, Wikipedia not being a directory of information, etc. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and move it to WikiVoyage, and if they don't want it then to Wikia. Non-encyclopaedic but perfect for a directory or travel guide - which Wikipedia is not. --Bob Re-born (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing GNG and being absolutely impossible to keep up to date for any length of time - theoretically, yes, I'm sure it could be done, but practically it's a disaster area waiting to happen. If we must transwiki it then let's do that - and then someone who cares about buses can write a nice prose article that details the history and summarises the current bus provision with plenty of links to the places the (up tp date) timetables can actually be found. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * talk it can be done there are references out there, like in the area I live Bristol there are at least 3 sources I could use to reference each route and it is an up to date article (almost) though I often get on t te council and even the bus operator about there own websites being incorrect and I also agree with Omnibus53. Mark999 (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * @Mark999. If, as you claim, even the bus operator websites are unreliable this just highlights the pointlessness of articles such as this. If you are adding information which is not yet in those sites it is original research and not allowed on Wikipedia.--Charles (talk) 09:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is updated within days once they are notified. And there is no where else a full list for the region exists only a search tool for your local area. Mark999 (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Evidently there is though - it's on Wikia isn't it? And it could be on wikiyoyage too. Although, to be honest, I'm unclear from a users point of view why a list is preferable to a search tool for my local area. I'd have thought that a search tool - given that as a user I'm likely to want to go from A to B - would be much more useful, especially as, for example, there are five number 1 buses in this county. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:40, 1 March 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) 19:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've replied in the other AFD. Peter&#160;James (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's far from impossible, there are only changes about 4/5 times a year to bus services as long as there is a good list to start with then it's simple to keep up to do. Mark999 (talk) 23:16, 1 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 West Midlands. 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) 21:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Some areas do not have such lists. Many others have already been deleted as non-notable. There no witch hunt as you rather oddly call it against the local population. This list just happened to come to attention because of being sourced only from an unreliable open wiki on Wikia together with unsourced notes which are not even on Wikia.--Charles (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I can find a few AFD discussions that resulted in deletion of bus routes, but of the UK lists only those for towns or non-unitary districts - below the level of county or transport authority - were deleted; county lists have been kept. The current discussions may result in a change. A transfer to Wikivoyage is unlikely to be successful, for reasons I've mentioned at Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Worcestershire. Peter&#160;James (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If not Vikivoyage then UK Transport Wiki on our sister project Wikia will be a suitable venue.--Charles (talk) 10:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of the pages there have been copied from Wikipedia with no edit history, and many are without the attribution required by Wikipedia's licence. Peter&#160;James (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that there are some areas without lists but the reason I say witch hunt is because only the West Midlands and Worcestershire are proposed for deletion. .--CharlesYou say that they just happened to come to attention, when there is no more evidence now that says, West Yorkshire, London or many of the other lists are any more notable or have any better sourcing. Shouldn’t they be proposed for deletion too?Youngmangonewest (talk) 10:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually Essex and Kent have been put forward for deletion by another editor since this one, although Essex has been closed for procedural reasons. Various of these articles get nominated fairly regularly because they are unencyclopedic. There is no "wich hunt" against any particular area.--Charles (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been closed; one editor has recommended closing it. Peter&#160;James (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Proposal This is an proposal which I think should be tried to improve the situation. One example merge these Category:Subcounty bus route pages into county articles and also remove lists off of operators pages and then link to country lists. Then come up with a universal format for local lists, remove service frequencies and such like (as I agree that part is not appropriate on Wikipedia]] and also make sure they are properly referenced from official websites (Not other wiki's) and there seems to be enough people about willing to add any changes there may be, then if the situation does NOT improve then consider deletion or other options. But to begin with simplify the current structure and at least see if it does improve. I do admit having the same informations/list on multiple articles does mean it is more likely to be outdated and confusing but I hope we can agree to give it a chance.Mark999 (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And a general tidy up I have merged many one line operator articles into a more substantial article and make what information is about more reliable and less unsourced lets face it rubbish information. Mark999 (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 'Delete. Wikipedia is not a repository for bus schedules. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:04, 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 be 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)
 * merge as suggested by Mark999. Perhaps we should have a general discussion about revising guidelines in the light of Wikivoyage, but I think this is important enough generally to be relevant here.  DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 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 11:37, 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.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? On 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 Worcestershire one. Shouldn’t the same approach be taken against all other lists of bus routes?Youngmangonewest (talk) 12:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I find the use of Nazi deeply offensive, and I find its use by the father of a disabled child beyond comprehension. You do yourself no favours using such language. To address your points: Saying other stuff exists is not an argument for keeping this article, and if it is deleted then yes it is very likely we will go after the other articles too. Trivia does not belong on Wikipedia, but there is an absolutely perfect home for trivia-obsessed transport fans at the UK Transport Wiki on Wikia. --Bob Re-born (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As offensive as I took remarks made about “bus spotters”. Quote: --Bob Re-born (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2013; (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.) and quote: --Charles (talk) 10:38, 25 February 2013”; “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”. Vilifying people in these ways, implying that as bus spotters they should all be at the village pump because they must be the village idiot contravenes Wikipedia's rules on commenting on other users – i.e. no personal attacks. I think you should look up the word Nazi. In historical terms, I apologise profusely for using the word in the way you have interpreted it but as a derogatory word to describe bullies who have no empathy for others.....Those earlier remarks are deeply hurtful. On reflection maybe it was a “Wiki-pun” too far but I stand by the sentiment. If the cap fits. Regarding the main issue anyway, I trust you understand that I totally accept that these lists probably should be removed or rather Transwikied (awful word for just plain tranferred) and I am pleased to hear that it’s not a selective process.Youngmangonewest (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This is getting quite off-topic but for the record the village pump has nothing to do with idiots. It is a wiki place where editors may gather to discuss editing issues.--Charles (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn’t it funny how we can all interpret things differently? Especially if we're not aware of the nuances of what is being said. Lol, I think is the appropriate jargon to use here. Anyway, now understood. Fired up though by other clearly derogatory comments - I am also aware that an editor used the word “crap” to describe the bus information in a response to my son. We all have opinions on other peoples hobbies but there are places to express them. I don’t think Wikipedia is an appropriate place, wouldn’t you agree? As I said, I do understand why deletion is being considered but feel that editors should adhere to the “no personal attacks” rule. Is it too much to ask editors to use professional,sensitive and appropriate language when promoting ideas to delete articles? Colloquialisms in writing will so often be misunderstood or offend. I hope you will understand that it’s because I have a disabled child that I feel so strongly over the comments I have read. Believe me, I've had to fight a lot of prejudice already from knuckle-draggers over his disability, never mind something as trivial as considering this issue. Anyway, hopefully the final words on this now and I'll let everyone get back "on-topic". Thank you anyway for the alternative website suggestion. Youngmangonewest (talk) 20:45, 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.