Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SBS Transit Service 579


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 13:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

SBS Transit Service 579

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is the first of a host of possible a group of nominations (to be submitted as a group) of what I believe to be non-notable (per WP:NTS) bus routes in Singapore that I happened upon.

Per that guideline, national routes are required to meet the general notability guideline, while for a smaller route (such as the ones under discussion) "to be notable, it must be discussed in considerable detail as to its impact on a region." The articles, to the contrary, are schedules and lists of bus stops, equipment used, with no or minimal editorial content.

Before taking the trouble to nominate them all, I hope to see whether there is a consensus on this. After submitting one article as a test, a consensus that the articles are not notable quickly arose. Hence the revision to include the entire list of routes found in Template:Singapore Bus Routes. Bongo matic  07:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments made when only first article had been submitted (though several of these comments refer to the entire list):

Please list new comments below here:
 * Speedy delete - it's totally unencyclopedic and unreferenced. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 07:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete the group. My totally unencyclopedic reasoning is somewhat different: such information, regardless of notability, may have any value only when it is regularly kept up-to-date. Apparently, wikipedia and its Singapore chapter cannot "enforce" such updates. Sooner or later the bus schedules will change (they do), and keeping stale info on wikipedia will mislead the accidental reader. Wikipedia should not host ephemeral information. NVO (talk) 07:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Bus routes are so fluid and temporary that trying to cover them reasonably is usually impossible, and Wikipedia is not a bus schedule. This is as opposed to tram or subway lines where the presence of tracks ensures some permanence. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not actually true in many cases, where bus routes still closely follow the old streetcar routes they replaced some 70 years ago. I have no idea if it's true here, though, and the article is just a list of stops. --NE2 12:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete -- We do not need articles on individual bus routes; Yes for train and tram lines, becasue they do not easily move, but not for buses. They are essentially unmaintainable, except by the operator, who will have its own website.  This sort of thing has come up several times before.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per NVO, Sjakkalle, and Peterkingiron. I would endorse the deletion of similar articles about bus routes in Singapore or any other city on the same grounds. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as not a travel guide. MilborneOne (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not Delete Wikipedia is a website to help people in passengers information in need. An encyclopedia is meant to help people, not to delete useful object. Please reconsider. Thank You. SBSinTransit (talk) 23.48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep While I m Not Sure About The Other Articles But I Think is the history of the bus which is worth keeping.Either It Should Be Merged With Bedok Bus Interchange Or We Could Just leave it as it is now.Yoshi-Sg(talk)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note nomination may be defective. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Procedural close as the nomination does not describe articles like SBS Transit Service 225. I'm not sure that most of that belongs, but at least some of the history could be merged somewhere - in this case probably Bedok Bus Interchange. --NE2 14:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 20:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge and redirect. An article on each bus route is a step too far. Maybe even two steps too far. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please look at and comment on all the articles. Thank you. --NE2 20:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete as per WP:NOTGUIDE. If we keep this it creates a precedent that every single bus route in the world deserves an article on WP.Michellecrisp (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as like List of bus routes in London. If you don't keep will delete all the articles straightaway.Timothyhouse1 (talk) 09:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, can you please clarify what you mean? None of these articles is a list of bus routes--each of them in fact is a separate bus route. A list of Singapore bus routes would seem less objectionable (although still totally unencylopedic). Bongo  matic  10:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep same as above. Timothyhouse1 (talk) 09:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep like Buses At Work and London Bus Routes, a list of the articles may be found in separate page. Timothyhouse1 (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * * Comment you cannot vote 3 times in a deletion discussion. Michellecrisp (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote. McWomble (talk) 05:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to something similar to List of bus routes in London. McWomble (talk) 05:26, 16 November 2008 (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.