Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public transport route planner


 * 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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen&times; &#9742;  00:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Public transport route planner
WP:NOT this. Collection of links to do with public transport rout planning. No hope of an article emerging.--Doc ask? 00:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC) -Doc ask? 00:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as a stub about public transport route planners. Possibly rename to route planner and keep as a stub about them. Kappa 01:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pointless list: if you needed this info, you'd go to the specific city/region or transit system articles. --Calton | Talk 02:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: This is not a list. It is a collection of links to external sites.  I.e. it is using Wikipedia to set up an Internet portal.  The content above the links is a dictdef.  Therefore, delete for dictdef.  Geogre 03:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Surely this could be speedied as . It contains nothing much but external links. Reyk 04:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand the description of the technology. --Vsion 05:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia's not a search directory, see Google for this information. (Notorious4life 06:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC))
 * Delete per 1.5 and 1.7 of NOT. Marskell 09:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * strong keep. There was an article in The Times the other day about the RAC's route planner that directed some guy across three ferries instead of a direct (road!) route.  Notable indeed. Robinh 09:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't see the point of this last vote/comment. The discussion in the Times doesn't seem to be about public transport route planners at all. No doubt a general article about computerised route planners could be written, and might be worth keeping, but this isn't such a thing - its a set of links. Without being too critical, has Robinh 'read' the article and would he like to explain the relevance of his remarks? --Doc ask? 09:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep but get rid of the external links. The text above it, including the amusing note about their weaknesses, easily rises above dicdef. Maybe it was recently added? --Last Malthusian 09:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as it would be in a regular encyclopaedia. 203.122.225.241 13:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as listcruft. The one about the route via Dublin applies to all route planning software - Autoroute used to send you from Portsmouth to Southampton via the Isle of Wight, and Autoroute 2002 for Haverfordwest to Leominster takes you via dun Laoghaire on the seacat.  Remove that non-specific allusion to a newspaper space-filler and what you have is exactly what WP:ISNOT: a collection of links.  Remove the links and you have... pretty much nothing.  I would link these individual planners on the sites for public transport in each country.  The requirement for finding the information on several countries at once is likely to be extremely small. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 23:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * So are you suggesting that wikipedia users have no need to know about this common flaw in route planning software? Kappa 01:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying that it is not specific to public transport route planning software (see the examples I cited), so should be in route planning software. The balance of the article is unencyclopaedic, as above. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 22:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per 203.122.225.241. This could be a proper article, even if it's currently just a stub with a list of links tacked on.  It does need expansion, though.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2005 (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.