Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney bus routes 100-199 (2nd nomination)

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. 1ne 23:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sydney bus routes 100-199

The following articles have been relisted for nomination following a deletion review:

• Sydney bus routes 200-299
• Sydney bus routes 300-399
• Sydney bus routes 400-499
• Sydney bus routes 500-599
• Sydney bus routes 600-699
• Sydney bus routes 700-799
• Sydney bus routes 800-899
• Sydney bus routes 900-999
• Sydney bus routes N00-N99

The original nomination can be found here (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sydney_bus_routes_100-199).

The original information that was said to be duplicated in the old List of bus routes in Sydney has now been deleted from the original page and there is no route information existing on Wikipedia for bus routes in Sydney. I vote to Merge this information all into one new page called List of Sydney bus routes. This can be fixed up and historical information added where appropriate. I suggest a Queensland-bus-route style template so the routes can easily be appended to railway station and other attraction pages. (JROBBO 06:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC))

• Delete all. Wikipedia is not a compilation of all information that exists anywhere. --Metropolitan90 06:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Super Strong Keep - I like the detailed information on each route, and it is easy to read in a clearly set out table. -- Whats new? 07:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge: per nominator, seems to make the most sense. --Hetar 07:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Put them in a pile and set them on fire. In other words, delete. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for, frankly, trivial detail about one city's bus routes. Let people go to the local agency websites for official info if they need it. --Calton | Talk 07:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Living in Tokyo, you probably don't understand that some of Sydney's bus routes have historical information that could be added (being former well-patronised tram routes etc). There are also many other articles from Australia and other countries that have lists of bus routes. Sure, individual bus routes or stops would probably not be notable enough to have an individual page, but a list of them should be fine. (JROBBO 07:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC))

Living in Sydney, you probably don't understand that there is a larger world outside of city boundaries which doesn't have the slightest interest or use for information of purely local -- and a narrowly defined "local", at that -- and trivial detail best served up by the people in charge of it directly to their particular consumers and customers. --Calton | Talk 01:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understand my point - there is a place for having transport information about each city on Wikipedia. For some reason, a lot of Americans on WP seem to think that it is their domain. Australian articles and cities are underrepresented. Sydney is one of the world's biggest cities with a complex network of buses, not a country town with a few buses every couple of hours. Why can't we list some of our bus information on WP to demonstrate its coverage? WP is not running out of space - there is plenty of room for lots of articles. There is no need for deletion. (JROBBO 07:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC))

• Comment Do we have notability criteria for transit routes and stops? I've noticed that every BART station in the SF bay area, and some of the muni lines all have articles. Jun-Dai 07:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - It would probably be a good idea to have such a guideline, and would certainly help draw a line between what should be on wikipedia and what shouldn't be, as not everyone has the same interpretation of WP:NOT --Mako 08:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• A silly request. This page will obviously be deleted. Those pages have as much right to be here as any others do. I will just play along until this silly request is thrown in the garbage. Ericsaindon2 07:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The short answer is per Metropolitan90, but I'll make some points:

1. The content of these articles is indiscriminate - the only criteria for inclusion seems to be that they once existed. It should be obvious that creating lists of all scheduled mass transit routes that have ever existed anywhere in the world is impractical, and of questionable value, so some sort of notability criteria needs to apply.
2. If the intention is that the criteria is "routes that currently exist" then there is an issue with these lists simply being a mirror (and WP is not a mirror) of information that is already available at http://www.131500.info
3. While not usually grounds for (immediate) deletion, not one of the nominated articles contains a single reference. As the articles have presumably been assembled from a primary source (ie bus timetables or 131500) and not simply from the editor's remembered knowledge it is somewhat dissapointing that no effort was made to provide any references.

I'm not against information on bus services per se, but think that the information needs to have some sort of context. They should be something that someone can read and learn something from, and not just dry facts that are about as interesting to read as a bus timetable. -- Mako 08:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Nuke them all!. This is a perfect example of why WP:NOT is important. Anyone looking for the information in these articles should be looking at the primary sources instead of the Wikipedia because there the data is much more likely to be up-to-date and free from errors. ^BlankVerse 11:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The bus routes don't change that much and there are editors who are happy to change them when they do. This is not an argument - it was already refuted in the first AfD nomination. You have not addressed the fact that there is valid historical information for some of these routes. And then there is the precedent that every other Australian capital city with buses has an article in the same manner, as does Hong Kong, London and other places as well, many of which have survived deletion attempts lately. I know there is no "precedent" policy on WP but it does give support to merging or keeping the information. (JROBBO 13:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC))

• Merge all per nom. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 11:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all - Wikipedia is not a bus schedule. Fire optional. Wickethewok 13:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The articles are NOT bus schedules, nor looking like schedules as such. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 13:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. These are basically lists of where the buses go- something that can easily be obtained from any bus station or its website. --Wafulz 16:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If you read my nomination, you would see that there is potential for these articles to be more than that. You have ignored the comment that historical information is available. (JROBBO 05:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC))

• Delete all. bus routes not encyclopedic, WP not a free web host. Gazpacho 16:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, please. How is this encyclopedic? Fram 18:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It shows the extent to which bus transport exists in Sydney, and what suburbs are covered by that. As I have also said, some of the routes have historical information. (JROBBO 05:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC))

I don't mind individual articles on routes that have some historical importance (having historical information isn't enough though, I have historical information on my family but it isn't worth including either). As for the rest of your response: again, what is so encyclopedic about that? Replace 'bus transport' by 'bakeries', 'post offices', 'amateur soccer teams', ... Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and this is a very good example of a series of articles that therefor shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Fram 07:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all WP:NOT a directory, also possible copyvio. ~ trialsanderrors 18:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

How is a list of bus routes a copyright violation? (JROBBO 05:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC))

• • If this list was created by someone else, presumably the bus operator, it is a copyvio. Copyright doesn't distinguish between lists, prose or poetry. Only whether it was copied in full or summarized. ~ trialsanderrors 06:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The bus information in the form listed here is not available from any one web site. 131500.com.au is a transport info site for Sydney - you have to look up each bus individually, and it does not give "via" information that is located on WP. These pages were formed by looking up the bus lines on the web site, looking at the street directory and ascertaining the suburbs in which the bus runs through. There are at least 15 bus operators in Sydney too, so it is not as if it was taken from a single website (as might be the case for an intermodal transport system, which does not exist in Sydney.) (JROBBO 07:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC))
      • That probably makes it both WP:OR and a copyright violation. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 12:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
        • No it doesn't. This is a list of bus routes, used to demonstrate the extent to which bus transport occurs in Sydney. Nothing more than that. It is not a copyright violation. (JROBBO 04:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC))
• Keep. It seems quite evident, from the subcategories of bus transport, that corresponding lists for other areas have existed without objection, and some of them have evolved beyond a similar table format. I don't see a valid reason to delete this. —freak(talk) 19:37, Aug. 21, 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom, as Wikipedia is not a list; see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --Bigtop 19:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no "Wikipedia is not a list". Which one are you referring to? ~ trialsanderrors 20:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete all, per nom and WP:NOT. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

But I didn't vote to delete it. WP:NOT does not say anything about this article - what are you talking about? (JROBBO 05:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC))

• Delete Clearly not of encyclopedic interest to have a copy of what is up-to-date onthe website of the bus company here, and rely on someone to update it every time there is a schedule change. Perhaps in some article about that city there could be a mention of what mas transit exists, with a link to the website of the company. Or a link to the city's website would be appropriate, and find transit info there. I would never trust route and schedule info copied to Wikipedia. Edison 21:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The schedule information will be deleted. It's just a list of bus routes. There's nothing wrong with that. (JROBBO 05:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC))

So there's nothing here that needs to be kept. Thank you for agreeing that this article should be deleted.

• Delete wikipedia is certainly not a bus timetable or a list of routes. If this article is kept, a bunch of other articles like Bus routes of Timbuktu will come up. Delete this. the content has no relevance for non sydney residents.--Ageo020 23:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not just an American thing. There is notability to having locally-important things on here. That is not an argument. (JROBBO 05:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC))

• Delete all If they aren't worthy of individual articles, they aren't worthy of lists. The contents are for travel guides, which Wikipedia is not. GRBerry 01:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say in the guidelines that lists are not worth including if they are not of individual articles? (JROBBO 05:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC))

• Merge per JRobbo providing it doesn't list the routes as a timetable would but discusses the areas covered by buses, any historic routes previously covered by trams. We don't want a timetable but an article may not be that. Capitalistroadster 02:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my entry on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in London. Garrie 04:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• COMMENT - PLEASE READ - can people please address the issues at hand? I have clearly said that there is historical information available for some of these routes, which would make them notable. I don't have time to add them or research it at the moment, but they exist. There are historical remnants of the old tram routes along some of these bus routes, like old bus shelters and bus-only lanes which were used as tram lines before the trams were torn up. Secondly, this is NOT a timetable or bus schedule. I have said elsewhere that the timetable-like information would be deleted leaving just the bus routes and where they go, which has been established elsewhere as being worth keeping. Sydney is the biggest city in Australia. Why are its bus routes not worth keeping, whereas everywhere else is? Please answer that question and don't just quote WP:NOT all the time. There has been no non-notability established for lists of bus routes. Individual bus stops are not notable, but that is not being debated. (JROBBO 05:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC))
  • 1. I don't see how the existence of historical information of some lines translates into a meaningful argument for keeping those lists. 2. WP:NOT doesn't exclude bus timetable or schedules. It excludes directories. And according to the definition of directory (database) it links to, this list falls squarely under that category. ~ trialsanderrors 07:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

1. The historical information has been the way that other such articles have been kept. 2. It's not a directory - it's a list of the bus routes, used to demonstrate coverage of the bus network in Sydney. I have already said this. (JROBBO 07:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC))

So write an article with the historical information. The list, timetables, etc. should be deleted. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 12:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - If the notability of these routes is based solely on them following old tram routes, then that should be included in Trams in Sydney (as it already is for some routes eg 308 and 309). If the intention is to discuss the areas serviced by buses, then wouldn't that be better as prose within Buses in Sydney? For example something like "Sydney Buses serves the North Shore as far north as Chatswood and East Lindfield, Frenchs Forest and the Northern Beaches. Main routes travel along Military Road and Pittwater Road, and main terminuses are Wynyard and Manly Wharf". To me that seems a lot more elegant, and a lot easier to read and understand than a long list. -- Mako 11:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not just the tram list. The bus routes have a notable history. (JROBBO 04:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC))

• • Speedy Delete All per above. The JPS^{talk to me} 10:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete all per above. I voted to delete last time. Correct me if I am wrong, but the last vote was carried, and I fail to see why we're having this pointless discussion all over again about a bunch of pointless lists which ought to ∞%*@# well have disappeared by now. I certainly take issue with those who refuse to delete anything at all because by doing so would spoil the completeness and accuracy of the information, or those who want to keep something which they thing someone, somewhere, however remote might have a use for at some stage. Feel free to clutter up your own home, where no-one but yourself will suffer. Don't do it to wiki. Wiki is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. These lists subject to deletion are just completionists' nonsense for completionisms' sake. More up to date and reliable information can be obtained from the transport authority, although it may not be in the exact form "useful" to JROBBO or Ohconfucius. The fact that [Edit:an opponent to Er, I meant supporter of] deletion lives outside Sydney is a red herring. In fact, it tends to impart some objectivity and stop self-centredness. If this merger proposal succeeds, imagine the nightmare to navigate the merged page of over a thousand lines. If anyone cares to produce encyclopaedic pages for certain historical Sydney bus-routes on the par with those which exist for some of the better London pages, I could be convinced to keep as legitimate entries. You could start with a page Historical Sydney bus routes and see how foar you get before multiplying it by several hundred. Stop this last minute appeal before the prisoners go to the gallows. Best pull the trap door, and light up a bonfire right now and add a few gallons of petrol. Ohconfucius 13:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment First of all, Wikipedia is not paper, and perhaps while unnotable bus routes may not be deserving of their own articles, some of that information is of relative use. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 14:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply Being of use is no argument to include something in Wikipedia. Look at WP:NOT: many things mentioned there are of use (travel info, genealogical entries, ...) and specifically excluded from Wikipedia. Buslines that have a notable history deserve an article, other ones don't. It's basically the same rule that applies to people, hotels, bands, ... Fram 14:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Just because wiki is not paper is not grounds for "all inclusiveness", which these lists clearly are. We've been here before. The fact that the vote was carried last time should be sufficient to close this rapidly. Added that there seems to be only 2 or 3 opposing deletion on grounds which have been well trodden.Ohconfucius 01:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Why does this one fail then, when so many others pass? What makes Sydney buses less notable than any other city? (JROBBO 04:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC))
        • I thinkWP:NBD applies to that. Just because an article is regarded to meet (or not meet) WP's policies and guidelines one day doesn't mean that it will be regarded to meet (or not) the guidelines and policies some other day, when both the article and guidelines may have changed, and when different people are interpreting the situation. It's also worth noting that not all similar articles have survived afd, for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qantas Flight Numbers. That's why we need an unambiguous policy regarding these type of articles (I know I should get it started myself). --Mako 05:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
          • It's not a vote, it's a discussion. --Alexxx1 ^{(talk/contribs)} 00:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge all, as recommended by nom. Such tables of bus routes on Wikipedia, while not the most exciting of articles, do serve several important purposes. Such tables provide a place for the history of such routes to be placed, such hisotries which can be quite intriguing and usually not readily found on the bus company's web site. Furthermore, placing the bus routes in a centralized article deters the creation of stubs about individual routes. Finally, unlike these articles, I doubt the website of the transport authority is unlikely to be able to provide hyperlinks to articles on the neighborhoods in which the routes terminate or any comprehensive history, both of which Wikipedia can provide.-- danntm ^T _C 03:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. Wikipedia should not become a collection of information on bus routes. Cedars 10:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into one article List of Sydney bus routes: I recommended to keep List of Melbourne tram routes, which is slightly, and I mean just slightly, more useful than these lists because it does include some history of these tram routes. Granted, I recommended to delete the Sydney bus routes, and given my subsequent decision on the Melbourne routes, I'm certainly willing to reconsider. There's much talk in this AfD about potential for improvement and historical info - but there's no action! I've seen AfDs completely change direction after article improvement rather than just saying "someone could add some history or notable info, but I don't have time". Even a tag or mention on the talk page of improvement promise may help save these articles (although the odds are fairly stacked against them). --Canley 15:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Failing that, merge them all into one article. --Alexxx1 ^{(talk/contribs)} 00:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete plain and simple after reading the above and look at a few articles. This could very well exist in a travel wiki without any objections. Problem here is that this is an encylopedia. Vegaswikian 22:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (see similar London bus routes AfD voting). WP is not bus company website and has no resources or mission to keep this kind of information uptodate. Pavel Vozenilek 19:50, 25 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.