Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Basingstoke

: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 keep. Merger discussions should continue elsewhere Courcelles 23:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

=[[List of bus routes in Basingstoke]]=

:{{la|List of bus routes in Basingstoke}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|List of bus routes in Basingstoke}})

Wikipedia is not a place for travel guides - that is what Wikitravel is for. Nor is it a place for minority interests such as bus/plane/train spotters - that is why the foundation set up Wikia. Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 11:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

::Revising my nomination for those who may not have read the specific guidance in WP:NOTDIR - WP:NOTGUIDE states that travel guide content belongs at Wikitravel or [http://travel.wikia.com/wiki/Wikia_Travel Wikia travel] instead. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 14:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

:::A list of transport-related things is not a travel guide.  Adam mugliston  Talk  14:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

::Keep - IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion.  Adam mugliston  Talk  11:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

::Merge into a revised List of bus routes in Hampshire, a county-wide article to match with all of the other List of bus routes in England. Arriva436talk/contribs 12:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete. It is most unlikely that significant coverage in reliable secondary sources will ever be found for this material. The article fails General Notability Guideline, Notability of Standalone Lists guideline, Wikipedia is not a Directory, Wikipedia Stand Alone List Guideline Wikipedia is not a Travel Guide and Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information. If this sort of material is kept it is always liable to become outdated and a source of misinformation if editors concerned lose interest. Even if we have legal indemnity against any unfortunate consequences of providing wrong data we have a moral responsibility to avoid doing so, not to mention the potential damage to WP's reputation. It is not just a case of not liking it as there are sound reasons for not keeping it.--Charles (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:SAL do not mention buses or anything transport related, while WP:NNC clearly states most lists do not have to satisfy GNG.  Adam mugliston  Talk  20:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  • No, that guideline says that within a notable article, such as Basingstoke all the content itself does not have to meet WP:GNG. However, the article still has to be notable as per Wikipedia:LISTN - for this you need to provide references discussing bus services in Basingstoke. Nuttah (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  • An article cannot be notable. Only its content can be, meaning that per WP:NNC, GNG does not have to be satisifed in lists.  Adam mugliston  Talk  20:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  • This has now been resubmitted following you deleting it. However, the article still has to be notable as per Wikipedia:LISTN - for this you need to provide references discussing bus services in Basingstoke. Nuttah (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  • What did I delete?! I know about references. These are on my to-do list, but I can't do everything at once.  Adam mugliston  Talk  21:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  • 'What did I delete?!' - follow the page history. 'I know about references. These are on my to-do list, but I can't do everything at once.' - you created the page over two years ago. Nuttah (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oops, sorry about that. I know, but I was new then and never got round to putting the refs on. I'm now doing it though. See User:Adam mugliston/Southampton, as that is the standard I will be getting all of the articles I created to. Some will also contain prose.  Adam mugliston  Talk  21:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  • There are no secondary sources establishing notability there. There is a difference between verifiable and notable. What you provide shows that the info is verifiable but if bus services in Southampton are notable you need a reference discussing that. Nuttah (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is a perfectly notable article which just needs a little expansion, is all. Rcsprinter (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep - needs expansion. not deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

:*What kind of expansion? Lists of non-notable bus stops as we have seen in similar articles? Whole sections devoted to non-notable routes? Pointless colour coding that disadvantages visually impaired users as we have seen here and elsewhere? Show me one secondary source that discusses this set of routes and I do not mean databases just reproducing schedules supplied by operators. Those are still primary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source not an organ for original research.--Charles (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep - IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. ad nauseam AFD's of bus route lists will not change consensus. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 06:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Beagel (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

:There is no part of WP:NOTDIR that states a list of bus routes contravenes this policy. Please state which part you think does. Arriva436/talk/contribs 20:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment: this was never listed on an AfD log, which presumably is why it hasn't been closed yet (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 July 24 has the other eight of these debates but not this one). Standard practise in cases such as this seems to be to list it on the current day's log and give the discussion another seven days to run, but with so many comments already that might not be necessary here. Anyone know where we could find an uninvolved admin to close it? Alzarian16 (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, since nobody responded, I listed it on the log for today anyway. Now we have to wait another seven days before deciding what to do with this.

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2011 (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.