Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 series bus routes, Sydney

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. Cbrown1023 02:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

100 series bus routes, Sydney

WP is not a directory, plus information is already provided in Buses in Sydney page. This page is redundant. matt-(my page-leave me a message) 23:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all of the same nature:

matt-(my page-leave me a message) 23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC

Comment - The related pages wasnt transcluded properly, so its been done now. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 02:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The question of concern is how often these are changed. In the ACT, the bus routes are changed every couple of years.Capitalistroadster 05:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 05:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 300 series bus routes, Sydney shows that a substantial amount of content can be sourced for a particular region. The smaller articles might be ripe for a consolidation though. Joestella 06:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalistroader raises a good point. Individual routes shift around to a limited extent, but the broad regions are static. From next year, Sydney will have 15 bus regions, each with a lead operator, at which time the bus route articles (excluding NightRide) can be retitled on the basis of region. Joestella 08:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This information only exists on the above pages. The Buses in Sydney page is being developed with a regulatory and social focus. The route pages have an infrastructure and operational focus. Joestella 12:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some more work on the articles. Matt ke, if you're serious about wanting these deleted, visit each (there's only 10) and make nominations on that basis. Thanks, though, for the impetus to improve them, they were a bit thrown-together when you found them. Joestella 15:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I put up the nomination, there was route information in Buses in Sydney. You can't delete it and say it's not duplicating. It is not fair to remove things there and then invalidates my reason for AfD here. I will, and only remove my nomination if you were to provide reasons and suggestions here, not editing nominated pages and invalidates some of my reasons. And how can other users keep track straight away if everyone has to trace back every edits you did whereas it'd be easier if you can put your suggestions here.

Anyway I've seen what you've done, and the article name has nothing whatsoever to do with infrastruture. It's still violating WP:NOT. matt-(my page-leave me a message) 17:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the way you feel, I apologise for being "not fair".

I get the sense that your problem is the presence of route numbers in the titles. I invite you to suggest alternatives, but I think the article names I've used are the best thing we have to divide the enormous network into manageable pieces. When the Unsworth reforms are complete, we can shift the articles into numbered MoT "metropolitan bus region" pages, and name them accordingly. In any case, a problem with the title is not grounds for deletion. One of our articles, Liverpool-Parramatta T-way could be accurately titled T80 bus route, Sydney, and that wouldn't fall foul of WP:NOT.

No-one could dispute that some of these articles need work, especially 900 series bus routes, Sydney. But taking the most advanced article for the sake of argument, 300 series bus routes, Sydney, tell me why the actual content violates WP:NOT. Joestella 17:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good this discussion is going somewhere positive. And for 300 series, as I pointed out, if the article is about "Buses in Eastern/South-eastern Sydney" there's nothing wrong with it. I know route numbers are based on regions, but to base on regions and to base on routes are different things which gives different ideas for other people (a page about routes vs a page about a certain region). I'm sure with an appropriate name for the pages (I'd suggest regions), then there's no need for deletion. matt-(my page-leave me a message) 17:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I understand the difficulties, but seriously someone would have a go at it even I didn't nominate if routes is the way of grouping. An open discussion on wikiproject Sydney should be of help I guess. matt-(my page-leave me a message) 18:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Suburbs is an easy one. But Western Sydney is effectively half the city by population, and the South and South West, plus the Northern District centred on Ryde, lack proper common names. I'm more inclined to use consistent nomenclature. Next year, there will be scope to rename the pages after MoT regions. But these will probably take the form Metropolitan Bus Region 5, Sydney unless MoT comes up with names. Whether region numbers would be better than route numbers is debatable. Joestella 18:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree I belive that the information on these route number pages is best consolidated and left on the Buses in Sydney page as it was prior to its recent removal. That was the consensus opinion when we went through this a few months back when very similar articles to these were nominated and sucessfully deleted. Quaidy 21:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not DeleteAs Buses in Sydney was, at the start of this debate, with the bus route information in hidden tables able to be easily expanded - was the best means of presenting this information. BUT each article should be listed for deletion individually so each can be discussed on it's own merit of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOT etc.Ga rr ie 23:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 03:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete -- Over time these articles have potential to evolve into a series of articles exploring the history and development of each bus route. John Dalton 04:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - If there's so many bus routes, having individual articles for each series is OK, in my opinionInsanephantom 08:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - some of these articles have some good information and can be improved. I wish the categories could be changed though so that they weren't so arbitrary. They should be changed when the new bus sectors come in to be more consistent. JROBBO 12:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.