Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OC Transpo Route 674


 * 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. Mailer Diablo 12:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

OC Transpo Route 674
Not speedyable via a7, so listed here. Wikipedia is not a bus schedule. --DarkAudit 00:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Also nominating: OC Transpo Route 152 OC Transpo Route 602 OC Transpo Route 609 OC Transpo Route 61 OC Transpo Route 62 OC Transpo Route 662 OC Transpo Route 663 OC Transpo Route 683 OC Transpo Route 684
 * Delete per nom and WP:NOT, non-encyclopedic.--WilliamThweatt 00:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am usre that this is not the first time this has come up. Is there an precedent in dealing with urban bus routes? Are there other transit systems whose routes have individual articles? Have we block-deleted bus route articles before? Ground Zero | t 00:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm we seem to have dozens of articles about London bus routes in Category:London bus routes. Ground Zero | t 00:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, the existence of one non-notable article doesn't justify keeping another. Secondly, are you seriously comparing London to Kanata?--WilliamThweatt 00:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing one side or the other. And I am not citing one so-called "non-notable" one, but dozens. There also seem to be individual articles for Vancouver's three bus rapid transit lines -- see Category:B-Line bus -- which are different from Ottawa's individual bus routes. London seems to be the only city with individual articles for bus routes. But I am not comparing London to Ottawa (not Kanata, which is not a city), but a London bus route to an Ottawa bus route. There is nothing inherently more worthy about an article about London bus route trundling through suburbs than about an article about an Ottawa bus route trundling through suburbs. Ground Zero | t 01:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Point taken. If consensus is to keep, no big deal to me.  However, personally, I don't believe any article describing a local bus route is encyclopedic or especially notable.--WilliamThweatt 01:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd think 61 and 62 would be "notable", as they're bus rapid transit routes on the Transitway. --SPUI (T - C) 00:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Author seems intent on listing all OC Transpo routes. --DarkAudit 00:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Any black, red,blue (early morning) and greens routes as well as the Scotiabank Shuttle are notable as it provides key service in diffrent parts of the city. Maybe the school routes and those not operated by OC can be removed but it would depend the rest, but ask the person who strated up first the routes decription republicofnewfoundland on that one.--JForget 01:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: We'd need reliable sources to justify that notability. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:NOT -- Alias Flood 01:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Alias Flood and nom, put into an appropriate summary article. London bus routes pages are very well detailed and of historic significance, these are not. SM247 My Talk  03:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and SM247. Joe 05:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a transit schedule. No evidence of historical significance. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 07:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete articles on bus routes??? We'll have one on every taxicab next.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom. Alphachimp  talk  14:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I could maybe keep a brief overview page of all Ottawa bus routes, but not something like this. Kirjtc2 14:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all most certainly. Articles on single bus routes?  That's ridiculous! Dark Shikari 18:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all. If I have to follow the wikilink on a page about a city's services to find out where and what the city is (i.e. not a large, metro area with a gazillion people and/or a storied past), that's a clue. - Baseball,Baby!   balls  •  strikes  20:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Quickly, if possible.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. After carefully considering the issue, I respectfully believe these articles should be kept. I agree these articles certainly need alot a work, and bus route articles should be far more than text versions of the route map.  However, the London bus route articles show that bus route articles can be quality articles if given the chance.  Thus, I submit the suggestion that these articles be retained for improvement. -- danntm talk 01:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment FEQ ~ trialsanderrors 01:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please pardon me if I was vague. I myself do not understand why anyone would want an article on a bus route for schools, and I certainly do not compare most of these routes to the storied urban routes found in London.  I just think that these articles should be given a chance to see if the creator, or someone else, could give them a full treatment.  danntm talk 16:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Bus routes have no inherent notability. If someone wants to go through the pain and read up on local news articles to establish some encyclopedic back story history I go with keep, but none of the articles comes anywhere close so far. ~ trialsanderrors 01:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a bus timetable. Perhaps smerge them all into one short page. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 17 July 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.