Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OC Transpo Route 1


 * 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 all -- Samir  धर्म 22:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

OC Transpo Route 1
I nominated this article for Deletion for the reason that it is not encyclopedic content, it is totally useless to Wikipedia and it's too short to be an article. --Deenoe 00:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I also nominate by the same occasion :


 * OC Transpo Route 2
 * OC Transpo Route 5
 * OC Transpo Route 6
 * OC Transpo Route 7
 * OC Transpo Route 10
 * OC Transpo Route 22
 * OC Transpo Route 23
 * OC Transpo Route 25
 * OC Transpo Route 28
 * OC Transpo Route 31
 * OC Transpo Route 33
 * OC Transpo Route 37
 * OC Transpo Route 55
 * OC Transpo Route 64
 * OC Transpo Route 70
 * OC Transpo Route 85
 * OC Transpo Route 87
 * OC Transpo Route 99
 * OC Transpo Route 118
 * OC Transpo Route 125
 * OC Transpo Route 145
 * OC Transpo Route 154
 * OC Transpo Route 182

I am basically asking to remove all the OC Transpo Routes article EXCEPT for Transitway Routes 95, 96, 97 has they are importants and they do have content. --Deenoe 23:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * if the content posted for 95 & 96 is of the same nature, you should not hesitate to push for a delete of those too, regardless of its importance until there is something important or insightful. The info within is tiresomely trivial and merits no place here WP:NOT. Ohconfucius
 * Well.. I wouldn't go for a delete of 95,96,97, but maybe more of a merge, since those routes (especially 95 & 97) contributed to the expansion of the city of Ottawa. --Deenoe 17:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete all. Doesn't even say which city this is in (I had to follow a link to find out that it was Ottawa). Poorly written articles on non-notable bus routes. -- Necrothesp 00:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom. I think this is obvious. --Deenoe 00:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all as wikipedia is not a bus schedule, but include a route map in the OC Transpo routes article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koffieyahoo (talk • contribs)
 * Comment I agree.. I'll go do that now. --Deenoe 01:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Does anyone know what tag to use for a map? --Deenoe 01:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Mmm, browsed to some underground articles and most appear to have a map drawn by some volunteer, hence either creative commons or GFDL licensed. The first article I came across that has an official map is the Copenhagen S-Tog, see and that one is tagged fair use. -- Koffieyahoo 02:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Jumping Jehosephat, I thought it could get no worse! Mea culpa. Oh, the article forgets to mention all of the trees and lampposts along the route ;-) Delete all, of course. Ohconfucius 01:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I see I am tilting at windmills, but these articles are a bit of a work in progress, so they may need to have more content added. ""OCtranspo is the municipal transit operator in Ottawa, Ontario Canada"" comes to mind for one.  My reasoning is partly that the group includes information about the relationships between geographic features in the capital of Canada, the transit way system in Ottawa is unusual, with different bus routes for different uses, (region wide, local, express, etc) once one has compiled this information it can be used by menay folks who are interested in other aspects to extract knowledge. It would not be hard to imangine articles on points of interest in the capital linking to the bus routes that serve then to allow the link-to to be used to find what is logicaly accessible by the OC transpo system.cmacd 18:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't agree. The routes articles does not give any useful information. They are not historical (except for routes 95 and 97) and the articles are just non-encyclopedic and are against the WP:NOT policy, that's undeniable. --Deenoe 18:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Would that type of information no be better placed in the OC Transpo Routes article? Having individual route articles seems to be too granular as I suspect many routes are not remarkable in any way. -- Whpq 20:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you could put them in a travel Wiki. Vegaswikian 06:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 *  Delete - Wikipedia is not a bus schedule -- Whpq 20:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Delete or Delete All? --Deenoe</b> 21:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all -- Whpq 14:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete all - Wikipedia is not a bus schedule 132.205.45.148 23:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * * Ok you can trash all the remaining bus route pages but I though of doing this instead but with just the starts and ends or terminals of routes. P.S If Wikipedia is not a bus schedule, then all the London U.K bus route pages should go for deletion as well no matter the history except maybe route 30 as it was the route where the double decker bus exploded on 7/7/05. --JForget 23:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment : We have something similar at OC Transpo Routes I believe, but it is not at detailed as the London bus routes list. Also, London routes have history. Ottawa routes doesn't (except, as I said, for 95, 96, 97). --<b style="color:#006633;">Deenoe</b> 00:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment : However I really like your idea JForget, so I'll start working on that today, hopefully I'll be done by tomorrow. --<b style="color:#006633;">Deenoe</b> 13:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. They might be excellent in a travel wiki.  Vegaswikian 06:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Undecided.....any more consensus, as in Ottawaproject members???Bacl-presby 19:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that Deenoe - so I think the result of this discussion is to delete the expresses, peak, and routes 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 85, 87, 99, 118, 125, 145, 154 & 182 route articles. Of course, notes can be added as I see there is some space beside each route.--JForget 22:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete all I agree with Deenoe. --Seamesse 23:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete it it is a waste of time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanw1 (talk • contribs)


 * I think this discussion is over and that we should delete the articles. --<b style="color:#006633;">Deenoe</b> 22:33, 18 August 2006 (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.