Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London School Buses


 * 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   no consensus. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

London School Buses

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I don't think a complete list of London school bus routes is encyclopedic. Mr. Quickling (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The nom has offered no valid reason to delete this encyclopedic list. I would understand a number of individual bus routes articles that can be merged into this one being an issue, but not the complete list. --Oakshade (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, nominator is making the point that Wikipedia isn't a bus time table. Quite an accurate statement — it's quite a trivial topic that falls below our standards.  Nyttend (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Since when are we banning lists? Are we to delete List of bus routes in London?--Oakshade (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Wikipedia is not for directories. Joe Chill (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: There are plenty of lists of bus routes in London which this article helps to support. This article does not just list stops on the journey it also includes contract information, vehicle information, etc. Both votes for delete only seem to support this because they are under the false illusion we do not include lists on WP. It seems to me that we love lists. Metty (talk) 23:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh really? Joe Chill (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - As Oakshade has pointed out, there is no valid reason given for deletion. This list came about as a result of AfDs on the individual route articles, which were merged into this single article as a result. No policy is broken here. Jeni  ( talk ) 23:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a detailed timetable and Wikipedia is not a directory. This level of detail is like a daily programming schedule for a TV station. Edison (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin I think perhaps Edison was looking at the wrong article, as none of what this !vote states is actually applicable. Suggest ignoring this one. Jeni  ( talk ) 11:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note to Jeni: Please read the article yourself. It talks about a 40 minute schedule change on Fridays, for instance, and gives far more than an encyclopedic amount of information about the routes and frequency of operation. I suggest not ignoring my input, thank you very much. Edison (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So just because you don't think that the information in a single* entry in a list of ~65 entries is encyclopaedic you think the entire list should be deleted!? The words "sledgehammer" and "nut" come to mind. I'd think that a more appropriate course of action would be to either be WP:BOLD and remove it or highlight it as an issue on the talk page so a consensus of editors could be achieved. * I say single, because this entry (the 616) is one of only two that continue the word "minute" (no entry contains "minutes") and the other (the 603) uses it in the context of the direct service being in contrast to a 10 minute walk. The 603 is also the only entry to use the word "hour" or "hours", "a day" is used only in one entry and "per day" is used in the introduction and two entries. "journeys" is used in the lead, and in the infobox for four routes (out of ~65 remember) and never in the prose about a route; the word "interval" is not used in the article at all. Given all these facts I find your assertion that it is a detailed timetable exceedingly difficult to believe credible. Regarding WP:NOTDIRECTORY, I cannot find a single criteria there that applies to this article, so again I am not completely convinced you are reading the same article I am. Thryduulf (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The typical directory entry in this list details 20 or thirty geographic points covered in the bus's route. How many students does it pick up/drop off at each one? Should I detail where County School Bus 22 stopped and who got on at each stop when I rode it to elementary school? Notability has no time limit, so every school bus itinerary in history is just as notable. It is trivial directory information that should be posted for the bus drivers and the students, but has no encyclopedic value for a worldwide readership. And yes, I am reading the same article you are. But I have read WP:NOT and WP:N. Edison (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Edison. Str8cash (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Edison. Bus routes and schedules are not appropriate for Wikipedia. If you want to know the route of a bus, you should go to the bus company's web site. Relying on Wikipedia is likely to result in people waiting in the sun or the rain at the wrong location or wrong time of day because our article was inaccurate or has been vandalized. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Bus routes are appropriate  subjects, their detailed schedules are not. How much detail of the routes should be included is debateable. The practice of combining articles in  a combination one, and then deleting the combination one, strike me here as evasive and dishonest. It's an attempt to bring about a deletion for which there would not have been   consensus for in the first place,.  The merge was expected to be an honest merge, not a way station towards deletion. It was merge, not merge, then delete. DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, it was me that nominated the original individual articles for deletion, the person who has started this nomination is some fairly new user with a dodgy editing background, and I doubt we'll see him again tbh. Stinks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT Jeni  ( talk ) 11:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree about the articles with the original routes--and I'm glad we agree over this nom as well--now it is to be seem whether this nom as any sympathy, for there seems to some people with a similarly biazrre views about content, a view which has now been expressed over a range of subjects. Perhaps we need to explicitly limit the scope of NOT DIRECTORY.  DGG ( talk ) 15:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is an encyclopaedic list of bus routes, with additional information beyond simply the route. I've only looked at a random sample of the entries, but none contained timetable information, all contained the franchise details and many contained history about the route - none of which would be included in a travel directory. The TOC needs improving, and some of the routes need more information regarding history, but this is not something that should cause it to be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, and that would go for almost any bus route article. The problem with a bus route article is that the information is ephemeral: the designation, schedule, route and operator can change quickly and without much of a reason. They are not notable in the way a subway line is because it doesn't have a fixed infrastructure.Cmprince (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * in my part of the world, bus routes remain stable with changes measured in years, not in weeks. The busses I took to school years ago still run about the same way now, and with the same numbering--and, I am told, the same problems. From the articles, London seems almost as stable.  The schedules themselves vary from season to season; at present there are no schedules in this article, for I removed the last one just now. Wikipedia can cope with changes over as period of years--almost ll of our topics overall have changes at that frequency.   DGG ( talk ) 15:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just so you know, WP:IKNOWIT. Str8cash (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The London Bus network is very stable. Everything is controlled by London Buses, and very few changes are made. Tenders are renewed every five years, but operators can run a route for seven years if they perform well. Any route change has to go through a large consultation period. Arriva436talk/contribs 10:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that tube/"subway" articles are relevant because of their infrastructure, more because of what they do - moving huge amounts of people about every day. In this way, buses are just as relevant, so not "and that would go for almost any bus route article". Buses in London carry more people than the tube every day. And as for infrastructure, what about bus shelters, bus stop signs, bus lanes, raised kerbs, bus stations, the iBus system... Arriva436talk/contribs</b> 10:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: These routes aren't notable on their own. We have recognised this, and merged them into one. Now someone had bowled up and nominated the merged article for deletion, which doesn't seem right. Especially when thousands of school children are using these buses everyday. Also agree with what Oakshade has said. <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> 10:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- In the past I have had grave doubts as to the value of articles on bus routes in WP, on the grounds that they change from time to time and we cannot guarantee maintenance. However, I think the level of detail here is appropriate.  Furthermore to delete routes 600-99, but keep other series would be inconsistent.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2009 (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.