Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current Metro Local routes


 * 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. I note that the last two "keep" opinions are not counted: the second-to-last makes reference to a since withdrawn "keep", and the last one makes no policy-based argument.  Sandstein  14:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

List of current Metro Local routes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a travel guide, and routes listed like this are not helpful to anyone. TJH2018 (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  20:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  20:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment/Unsure - it's quite normal for Wikipedia to have coverage of this sort. See Bus routes in London, list of Toronto Transit Commission bus routes, Green Line Coaches, etc. But are these bus routes reasonably stable (over the course of, say, decades), or do they change every year? If they are reasonably constant and unchanging, then this sounds like a reasonable subject for an article. If not, then maybe the better site for this content is the operator website. I'd welcome local input on this. So I withdraw my 'keep' vote. Blythwood (talk) 12:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTTRAVEL. A great many such lists have been deleted including almost all in the United Kingdom.Charles (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge as appropriate to Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and transwiki the rest to Wikivoyage. Unnecessary and overly detailed list; fails WP:NOTDIR and appears to fail WP:LISTN, in addition to the arguments made above. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 17:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: As a reasonable content fork. I rule out a merge because the ensuing article will be too long.  Also, if the nominator is citing NOT, we can always migrate this to WikiVoyage.  p  b  p  18:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's what I'm proposing. We should just delete the page entirely, and not include any routes for Metro Local at all. We should also talk about routes on Metro Express (Los Angeles County) and Metro Rapid. The Metro Local page itself should be removed from AfD but have the routes trimmed out. RfC. TJH2018 (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as a content fork, but trim the details of each route into a table, such as at List of bus routes in Queens or List of bus routes in Hong Kong. We do not need unnecessary detail, but deleting this page won't help readers any more, either. epicgenius (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per - I would thoroughly enjoying nuking the shit out of this!, As noted above it fails NOTRAVEL, NOTGUIDE, NOTDIR, GNG ... You aswell say it fails every policy here ....., Anyway we're an encyclopedia... not a travel guide and to be fair all of this does become outdated (It happened with so many of the UK ones until they all got nuked) and so anyone wanting up to date info should either buy a timetable and or check the route on the bus companies website ... – Davey 2010 Talk 01:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: We should ignore the fact that WP:NOTTRAVEL does not apply to this article (this is obviously not a travel guide, as WP:NOTTRAVEL says, 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.) We should take note only of the destinations and roads served, which more than helps readers (in which case they can go to the website for more information). It works with other systems, too. Why are we unnecessary breaking wikilinks and deleting information? This needs cleanup, not deletion. epicgenius (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If we do not include every "tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc." why should we include every non-notable local bus route. It seems to me that is covered by the "etc". We do not have lists of gas stations, 24 hour pharmacies and such like. These would be just as WP:USEFUL but are not stable encyclopedic content, anymore than lists of bus routes. This article is basically fancruft.Charles (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's why Metro Local routes is 1 article and not 100 of them. Not all routes may be notable, but taken as a whole, they are notable.  What's more, I think some Metro bus routes (720 comes to mind) actually have enough coverage to pass GNG.  Metro busing and gas stations are apples and oranges in that Metro busing has much more reliable sourcing than gas stations do.   p  b  p  14:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I suspect you could find as many sources on gas stations as bus routes, planning permissions, licences etc, as for most minor bus routes. That is however beside the point. These are all run-of-the-mill commercial services and there is no reason for Wikipedia to list them.Charles (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You may be of that opinion, but while gas stations are inherently non-notable, there are thousands of articles on individual bus lines, if not list of bus lines, on Wikipedia. Surely if we delete a list of bus lines, we should also delete list of subway lines since we are not a travel guide. Then we should delete lists of motorways, interstates, highways, roads, etc. The point is that if we delete one article about notable infrastructure that some may find non-notable, by that reasoning we should delete the rest as well. epicgenius (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Subways and roads are permanent infrastructure. Bus routes are not and change all the time. You are making a spurious comparison.Charles (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Likewise, Charles, you are making a spurious comparison when you say that bus lines are no more notable than gas stations. For starters, most bus routes have more reliable sources than the average gas station.  Secondly, gas stations that have a lot of reliable sources, such as those that are NRHP-listed, can be and are kept.  You're also ignoring the fact that this is all routes in a single article, not one article per route.  Finally, I must remind you that RUNOFTHEMILL isn't in an of itself policy.   p  b  p  19:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's slow down for a second and think about this. To keep this up to date, you would have to have a Wikipedian put hours in to making this list current. You would also have to spend even more time going to Metro.net and linking every single timetable for every bus route. Also, someone would have to go through and update those links every time there is a service change, which for Metro, would be twice a year. I don't think anyone should have to go through all that trouble for something that's always up to date on another website. And about the subways, those are actually notable, and have meaning to readers, versus old bus routes that may not even exist. I agree with epicgenius that we should maybe trim it down to a level with no unnecessary detail, and just list the route, starting point and end point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJH2018 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So we should delete anything that changes every six months? We have a lot of deleting to do.  p  b  p  19:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Metro can do alot better at updating this then we can ....., And lets be honest we all have better things to do than to sit here twice a year updating this crap, Someone should merge all of this over to Wikia and then all our problems would be solved. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And yet, if there was an article on a bus system with ten lines changing once every five years, and fifty citations to support that information, we wouldn't have a problem with deleting that list at all. That bus system can be smaller and it can have more reliable sources, but the frequency of the bus routes' changes and the lack of citations on the article does not indicate that deletion is the way to go. We don't need to list all the details, just the destinations and a little notable history. epicgenius (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * IMO, "we'll have to update this article twice a year" is not a particularly valid argument for deletion. There are many other types of articles that have to be updated dozens of times annually yet we would never dream of deleting.  p  b  p  01:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That is true but atleast me this is different ...... Any article I've seen that needs updating once or twice a year is an actual article .... this is just one big gigantic list of "stuff" that can be hosted on the bus companies website, Meh we all judge things differently here .... Thank god I'm not the closing admin!, – Davey 2010 Talk 04:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I think we have reached a consensus. We should trim down the lists on the normal Metro Local article, and delete this one entirely. But, to get history on every line would be impossible. Also, PBP and Charles, you need to stop going at it. You can do it on each other's talk page, just not here. The newbie shouldn't have to be telling you this. TJH2018 (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * IMO, we have not reached any kind of consensus to delete this article. There are as many people wanting to keep this article as wanting to delete it.  I also find it unfortunate that you equate my actions with Charles'.  I confine my comments to Charles' position on this article, but he wants to focus on my style of contributions rather than actually give policy based-arguments as to why this article should be deleted.   p  b  p  00:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * PBP, I'm on your side as Charles is being extremely inappropriate in this discussion. I was just trying to keep it neutral. His comment about your blocks and editing style are not important. At this point, any further comments from him should be discredited and not included in the consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJH2018 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not about taking sides. I did not know there have been blocks and did not mention them. The edit I commented on was made to the article under discussion, so has relevance. We are trying to establish the fate of this article based on policies and guidelines.Charles (talk) 09:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 03:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. This kind of content is not useful for Wikipedia. No sources have been provided other than the transit authority's own web site ... which is where travelers should go to find the information found here (and on the transit authority's site, they will find much more detail, including timetables and maps). A bus user would be unwise to rely on this Wikipedia article, which could have been vandalized or become out of date. If someone did decide to rely on this article rather than going to the Metro web site, they could find themselves standing in the sun or the rain for hours, waiting for a bus that was never going to arrive. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per . Class455fan1 (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per Charlesdrakew Jeni  ( talk ) 16:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as a list of services without evidence of notability (and currently without any references). There's more context than a simple listing, but suitable third-party sources (not just the operator's own site and any databases that may exist) are needed. Peter James (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC) I don't think that lists such as this are always unsuitable - lists of television series episodes and characters exist where there is some notability but not enough for a separate article for each item - but evidence is necessary and no sources have been cited. If it is suitable for an article, this and List of former Metro Local routes should be merged, so the potentially misleading "current" can be removed from the title. Peter James (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Peter, for something like this, why would you need third-party sources? TJH2018 (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:PRIMARY. Articles should not rely entirely on primary sources.Charles (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Charles, if you can find a third-party source for a Metro bus line that gives you the times, stops, etc., then I will remove this AfD.TJH2018 (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's also the primary reason why I put this up for an AfD.TJH2018 (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC


 * Delete per Charles and Davey. Nordic   Dragon  14:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep on the simple basis it has potential encyclopedic value. Aeonx (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In what way?Charles (talk) 10:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Articles are kept on notability etc ... not "encyclopedic value" which this doesn't have anyway!. – Davey 2010 Talk 13:50, 6 March 2016 (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.