Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of COTA bus routes

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Contrary to DocFreeman24's !vote, there is a consensus here, and that is a consensus to keep. Closing a discussion is neither a mathematical formula nor an exercise in headcounting, but here there is a clear two-to-one advantage for those arguing to keep the article. If such a consensus were unclear, then obviously this would be closed as "no consensus" and the article would remain just the same. Every article doesn't require world-class citations to exist; the arguments that the sources here are adequate to support WP:LISTN are exactly that: adequate. I will inject a few of my own thoughts here. The history section should be moved above the routes to provide the meat of the context ahead of the gravy. I suspect that more information about the routes, such as their dates of establishment, can be worked into the table. Finally, absent substantial expansion of this topic, I do not think that a merge to Central Ohio Transit Authority would constitute a bad outcome. The final article would be approximately 80k, which is not at all unusual for a Wikipedia article. I would suggest participants revisit this question in time and reconsider such a merge, with appropriate section redirects. BD2412 T 05:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of COTA routes and services

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

List of COTA bus routes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a local bus travel guide. No indication anywhere that these bus routes are notable. The only bit of useful content was tried and unsuccessfully shifted to the parent article Central Ohio Transit Authority Ajf773 (talk) 09:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep. This is why I have been adding "useful content", to prevent deletionists like you from going ham on it. Please be aware that this is one of about 57 bus route articles in the United States. Do you have any idea why this one should go while the others should stay? I actually recently wrote it to be the best example of a transit article possible - I dare you to find one better. ɱ (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please also read Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-05-31/Community view, the page this article was featured in, which I received plenty of public and private support for. ɱ (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Assembling AfDs on route articles here. There is a clear overwhelming consensus to keep route articles for cities even smaller than Columbus, which is large for the United States. 2016 discussion, 2014 discussion, 2019 discussion, 2006 discussion, 2010 discussion. Can you provide even a single instance where we have deleted transit route articles? ɱ (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So you found ways to have articles deleted quietly, mostly with only a few delete votes and no widespread discussion or consensus? Why not take the entire idea you want to a WikiProject, or have it in established policies? Because WP:NOTGUIDE says nothing about transit, nothing that each entry itself has to be notable, or really any of the points you are trying to make here. You need a policy-based argument; none of your points are currently. ɱ (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have thought that a list of bus routes accompanied by a list of links to their timetables and self published maps showing their routes is a very clear definition of a travel guide. In conjunction with none of the routes showing any such proof of notability. This is policy-based. Ajf773 (talk) 09:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"A guide book or travel guide is "a book of information about a place designed for the use of visitors or tourists". It will usually include information about sights, accommodation, restaurants, transportation, and activities. Maps of varying detail and historical and cultural information are often included." This article is about transportation, sure, but the similarities end there. There is nothing about sights or accomodation, cultural information, or anything designed for tourists or visitors. Most people in Ohio drive, take ubers, lyfts, or taxis, or utilize alternative methods like bikeshare and electric scooters. Public transportation is almost universally taken by local residents in Central Ohio. ɱ (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lol the policy doesn't directly define the term - it instead directly links to the article I copied and pasted from! This is the definition used here, sorry. Again there's no similarities other than the fact "transportation" is a word mentioned. ɱ (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And feel free to nominate National Register of Historic Places listings in Columbus, Ohio for deletion, as this is a guide to historic sites in Columbus, much more a tourist-friendly list than local bus routes ever will be here. ɱ (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can you even compare that article with this one? One is a list of notable historic places, the other is a list of run-of-the-mill bus routes. Ajf773 (talk) 09:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because, your sole policy argument that this somehow conflicts with WP:NOTGUIDE is more relevant to the historic site list, or really any other article about Columbus, more than this article of attributes of the transportation system taken by the residents of this city. ɱ (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, then explain yourself. Because "notability" is not a reason to delete when there are multiple reliable outside sources - this easily passes the WP:General notability guideline. And what Wikipedia is not is a huge policy that I'm not fishing through to find your argument. If it's not NOTGUIDE, what argument do you even have there? ɱ (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notability requires quality sources, not quantity, i.e. not masses of stuff replicated from official transit websites. Ajf773 (talk) 09:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, duh, I've written handfuls of GAs and FAs. And The Columbus Dispatch, Mass Transit Magazine, Columbus Underground, and WBNS-10TV are not "masses of stuff replicated from transit websites"! ɱ (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...and there are several sources here that aren't transit websites. NemesisAT (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a list of bus routes in a mid-sized metropolitan area in the United States. It does not violate WP:NOTTRAVEL since a visual map of routes does not make Wikipedia a travel guide, nor is a description of these routes' termini. These descriptions are defining traits of the bus routes, not a "travel guide". Furthermore, the nominator says there is "no indication anywhere that these bus routes are notable". However, that is not demonstrably true, as there are thousands of news articles about COTA bus routes in Columbus, OH. I have not looked into any specific bus routes, and they may very well be non-notable on their own, but I cannot find evidence that COTA bus routes overall are non-notable. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are we actually looking for in those links? That just leads to search engines. Be more specific or else I'm just going to assume that you have no proof of notability. Ajf773 (talk) 08:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ajf773: You don't seem to have a problem with WP:JUSTAVOTE when it's in your favour. However, if you want something more substantial, consider this: I think your crusade against lists of bus routes is just a thinly-veiled WP:IDL. In the past year, nearly 20% of your deletion nominations have been against these lists. (The only other topic that comes remotely close to attracting your attention is cricketers, which you attacked about 60% less than route lists.) I don't know why you're engaging in this WP:POVPUSHing, but I would appreciate it if you would cease and desist. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you obviously have nothing of value to add to Wikipedia. You are a destructionist. Well over half of your page creations are deletion nominations. Go attack something else. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this list appears to be adequately sourced, and we keep many lists of railway routes so I don't see why bus routes should be any different if they are fully sourced as appears to be the case here. NemesisAT (talk) 11:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We aren't taking about a list of railway routes here, we are talking about a list of bus routes and assess it on its own merits. By the way, majority of the article is primary sources straight from the transit authority's website. Might as well go straight there to find out about the bus routes. Ajf773 (talk) 09:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed in the past couple of days that buses seem to be unfairly targeted on Wikipedia. By your logic, nothing should exist on Wikipedia because we can just go the original sources. There is value in collecting this data together. NemesisAT (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NemesisAT: A textbook example of WP:IDL. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • BUSOUTCOMES doesn't carry much weight, its not a guideline, just a summary of how things are usually handled, each article needs to be individually evaluated. As a list this doesn't pass WP:LISTN since the individual items in the list aren't independently notable, nor is there any reliable secondary source coverage discussing the bus routes as a group.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have added a few sources and I reckon there are more available that could be added. NemesisAT (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of information on Wikipedia could be classed as a travel guide. This article doesn't make suggestions, nor does it list prices. It isn't a travel guide any more than a railway line or station article is. There are now several independent sources cited in this article too. NemesisAT (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment - perhaps some can't realize this, but perhaps please read the Signpost article featuring this entry. I revolutionized list techniques here - this is a standard that should be kept as an example of some of the best that is possible for transit lists and lists in general. My route mapping, pulling from OpenStreetMap, is completely a novel idea, requiring me to create my own methods and my own tutorial. Also novel for transit route articles is my formatting the most relevant information in a clear format, using the same colors the agency uses. I tweaked settings endlessly, to perfection, especially the inline maps to allow for legibility as well as appropriate size. The collapsible maps are functional for mobile and desktop users. This article is also an imperative part of many infoboxes. Articles like Columbus Museum of Art utilize {{COTA link}}, like other exemplar cities do, and in this case, linking directly to the relevant place in this article that explains the route. ɱ (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the routes have their own articles already, others are independently sourced. This isn't "fan" content. NemesisAT (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I got muddled up between this page and another one. Sounds like more articles are in the works, however. (See comment below this) NemesisAT (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To prove notability, I am working on a draft for another of the services, and may start some others. But it's clear that transit lists are inherently notable, especially as when single articles aren't seen as notable enough (WP:BUSOUTCOMES). WP:NOTGUIDE is not worded to be relevant in any way, and the deletion votes held that, until this user started quick and quiet deletion discussions with little input or discussion. ɱ (talk) 13:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We now have entries on CMAX and the CBUS, I have a draft part-done for route 10, and will start one for route 2 and/or another soon... ɱ (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Read again.Djflem (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article doesn't cover timetables, and I see no reason why bus routes are any different to the railway route diagrams and maps that are included on many articles. NemesisAT (talk) 12:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The policy of WP:NOTTRAVEL is NOT limited to what is says. A timetable is a guide. WP:NOTTIMETABLE discusses Simply replicating information from published timetables, or repeating information (such as train times or service hours) which is subject to frequent change, may be considered directory writing. Wikipedia is not a directory either. Ajf773 (talk) 09:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it's not limited to what it says—it's whatever Ajf773 says to suit his single-minded crusade. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we can just make up new policy whenever it suits us now? Okay. As for WP:NOTTIMETABLE, that's an essay, not policy. It also disucces trains, not buses. And, you missed these bits: Include maps and diagrams and Use tables to summarize lines. Once again, your comment is misleading. NemesisAT (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an essay that effectively elaborates on WP:NOTTRAVEL. Rapid services, like trains, tend to be more notable than local bus routes although that is governed by the notability policy anyway. I'm not making up policy, you're just misinterpreting it. Ajf773 (talk) 09:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this wasn't an easy one, and the argument above has run hot. There's a lot of work gone into the article and I didn't take this vote lightly. I'm not convinced by invoking WP:NOTGUIDE because the article does not try to fulfil that function, but I am ultimately convinced that this article fails WP:LISTCRITERIA: "Lists are commonly written to satisfy one of the following sets of criteria: Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of Dilbert characters or List of paracetamol brand names. Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article. (Note that this criterion is never used for living people.) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case would you support a merge to Central Ohio Transit Authority? NemesisAT (talk) 12:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, enthusiastically. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This really is not a valid point. It applies to every list of bus routes in existence; you deletionists really are giving broader arguments that should be made in an RfC for every bus route article, not just unique to this one or a few. Also you're cherry-picking. That selection you gave was one of three of Lists are commonly written to satisfy one of the following sets of criteria". This doesn't say it has to be one of these, nevertheless, it falls under "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group" which ..."could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers...if reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable businesses and two non-notable businesses, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable businesses." This is easily that, and thus in no way has to be the example you describe above. It's a poor reading of a guideline. ɱ (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not cherry picking, it's highlighting the most pertinent part of the guideline rather than making people wade through all three. I linked the guideline itself, so people can go lookit. And I happen to think it's not a poor reading of the guideline, but the reading that I - after much consideration - applied. You disagree? That's your right, but I note as the article creator you have skin in the game. And calling people 'deletionists' is divisive and unnecessary, IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"the most pertinent part"??? It's actually the least pertinent part. It's factually incorrect that "every entry in the list fails the notability criteria" because I have proven at least three notable routes: CMAX, CBUS, and 10 E Broad / W Broad. And soon to be more. It's a very poor reading, and the portion I describe actually is accurate and applies fine to this article. And it's not even a requirement, it describes why lists are "commonly written". ɱ (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Missvain: It should be obvious that the consensus – except for one vocal naysayer – is Keep. There is no point in re-relisting this discussion. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 23:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Crossing out double vote. Also there are several delete votes in there from other users so there is no obvious consensus yet. Ajf773 (talk) 09:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a double vote, it's a comment. The bolding was added for empahsis. Stop misconstruing others’ comments. Regardless, it *should* be obvious which way the discussion has been trending. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've inferred it as a double vote and made it clear to other readers that you have already voted. I'm not sure what you wanted to achieve with that comment. Missvain has chosen to extend the discussion because they have concluded there is no consensus at this stage. You don't get to decide that and it's petty to try and manipulate them into closing to one user's preferred outcome. Ajf773 (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ajf773 - you need to know that it is NOT okay to edit other users' comments. See WP:TPOC. If I see you do this again I will report it - there isn't any tolerance for it here. ɱ (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only thing that I did was strike out AlgaeGraphix's comment to eschew the double vote. I've seen this happen before on dozens of other AfD's and though this was accepted. Point taken. Ajf773 (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Coolabahapple: Again, the set of bus routes is notable. There are innumerous references on the COTA article, as well as this article, from outside sources. An AfD doesn't need to bring up new sources when it's not necessary for any more to be brought up. ɱ (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As well, per LISTN, "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability". This article provides a navigational base to dozens of articles that include public transit information in their infoboxes, where COTA 12 for instance directs to this article, providing information on the route. This is a standard element of larger transit agencies on Wikipedia. ɱ (talk) 12:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Coolabahapple A list of references have been provided below. Your input would be useful as this thread about bus routes is very heated. Uses x (talk • contribs) 19:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a well referenced list article that's useful for people who live in the area or who are simply curious, and it's a reasonable split from the main article Central Ohio Transit Authority for people who are interested in the small details. The comment about them being "primary sources" isn't relevant, because there's no reason to assume the information is incorrect, and the notability of the bus routes stems from the notability of the main article rather than its own citations; if any article anywhere is referencing the transit authority, that's only possible because they have these routes. Uses x (talk • contribs) 22:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of articles dedicated to reporting on these bus routes, as provided below and in the general search term I provided below, making their significance in the local area clear. Uses x (talk • contribs) 19:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and there are plenty enough outside reliable sources to satisfy any policy or guideline. Provide an excerpt from a notability guideline you think this breaks? ɱ (talk) 02:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how you could possibly come to that conclusion when this list article cites: Columbus Messenger, The Columbus Dispatch, The Lantern, Columbus Underground, and WBNS-10TV, some of these multiple times. And then that some of these routes are so notable on their own, with three having live articles, each of which have many more independent history and news sources that go well into depth about the transit routes. ɱ (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we have gone through this that WP:GNG is only a single part of WP:N. Another, more detailed part describes lists in more detail - WP:LISTN. And there it says: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list...Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable. This more than negates your argument. ɱ (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Take your pick on the many articles dedicated to reporting on the changes in the routes then. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22COTA+bus+routes%22+news+ohio&t=ffab&ia=web Uses x (talk • contribs) 18:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can @Ajf773 bludgeoning the process be taken into account? "where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different fromtheir own." They've replied 28 times in this discussion alone, going against every single keep vote (i.e. the definition of bludgeoning). I read their view on it before posting, and I don't think it applies, which is why I made my comment. When you get rid of that nonsense which is disrupting the discussion, concensus is already clear, with 8 keep votes and only 4 delete votes. Uses x (talk • contribs) 19:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bludgeoning the process? That's not the word I would use to describe what you are inferring. I am literally challenging comments where I feel I need to, you're welcome to do the same. Also the number of keep and delete votes is not consensus as AfD's are WP:NOTAVOTE. Ajf773 (talk) 02:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're bludgeoning the process. I've heard tell of taking you to AN/I, and I am considering it. This is getting ridiculous. And, no, it's not just a vote when the four delete votes hold no merit, and have not resulted in any successful arguments. ɱ (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ɱ: You might as well add WP:Tendentious to the list of bad behaviour. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 11:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
agree, Ɱ has been quite tendentious:), as for bludgeoning they have probably both been doing that .... although the "veteran editor" should know better? ps. i am not a baby goat (see a few replies below the reference bombardment) Coolabahapple (talk) 06:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I suppose you would be too when a gang of deletionists suppose that my seventh-biggest work on Wikipedia isn't good enough for their made-up standards - a work that I've edited more than any page you ever have, Coolabahapple, and which had enough new innovations to warrant a Signpost article about it. ɱ (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable independent sources about COTA routes generally, satisfying WP:LISTN:

And these are all just within the last few years. If you want me to use Dispatch archives and Newspapers.com I print out a list as tall as a door. --ɱ (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I haven't got time to look through all those but from a glance I am seeing a lot of local news, routine coverage, and content more applicable to the parent article rather than individual routes. Ajf773 (talk) 02:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These are all reliable sources applicable to LISTN. As a 100k+-edit, 12-year veteran editor you can trust me on that. If you can't understand that, maybe you need to take a few more introductory courses and really take a hard read-over of WP:RS and WP:N. ɱ (talk) 04:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! so as a veteran editor can you please explain to us mere mortals why you refbombed this afd without specifically explaining how any of the above references contribute to meeting wp:nlist ie. quick summation of the ref and how it contributes (basic afd etiquette really), and as a veteran editor can you please explain how relevant to an afd it is to specify one's wikiexperience (oooooohhhhhhh, 100k+ edits:)), or to use belittling language? ps. you may like to have a look at WP:BULLY. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, kid, I wasn't replying to you, I was replying to a user who is fairly new, and really does need to re-read WP:RS and WP:N. LISTN requires a group of items, like COTA routes, to have been discussed by independent reliable sources. These are all easily reliable sources that satisfy those terms. You can do the bare minimum and click and read them if you'd like. You still have failed to provide any accurate policy-based arguments for deletion, the least you could do is follow up with any responsible argument for this AfD. ɱ (talk) 03:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
most of them (5, 6, 8to18, 20to23, 25to46, 48, 50, 52to54, 56) are route/service timetables issued by COTA, not useable for notability, also see WP:NTT;
1. "Our Fares", COTA, provides factual info, does not discuss routes, non-neutral (nn);
2. "Frequently Asked Questions", COTA, provides factual info, does not discuss routes, (nn);
3. https://www.cota.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/COTA-zmap-sep-2019.pdf overall routes map, provides factual info, does not discuss routes, (nn); 4. "Long Range Transit Plan", COTA, sets out how COTA will achieve the 3 goals listed in the executive summary, nn;
7. "UPDATED: COTA to Increase Frequency on 3 Lines, NightOwl to Stay", Columbus Underground, regurgitation of a COTA press release(?) nn;
19 (a to o). "StackPath", Mass Transit (from The Coumbus Dispatch), title is "OH: COTA to restore 90% of pre-pandemic service on May 3, including all express lines" news article about impact of covid on network, just mentions of the routes coming back; 24. "COTA to realign bus routes", Columbus Messenger, mostly a report on a presentation by COTA about it's Transit System Redesign, some route changes covered but just mentions;
47. "Cbus at 5 years: Ridership has grown on free connector service", The Columbus Dispatch, news article about the CBUS route, covers one route only;
49. "COTA keeping Night Owl bus service", The Columbus Dispatch, news article about the Night owl route, covers one route only;
51. "COTA no longer provides direct service to airport", The Lantern, news article about the OSUAir route, and its replacement, the AirConnect route, covers two routes (one defunct) only;
55. "2019 Annual Report", COTA, mentions Mainstream and Zoom to Boom services in "COTA 2019 in Review", nn;
57. https://infoweb-newsbank-com.webproxy3.columbuslibrary.org/apps/news/document-view?p=WORLDNEWS&t=favorite%3ACOLUMBUS%21Columbus%20Dispatch%20Historical%20and%20Current&sort=_rank_%3AD&fld-base-0=alltext&maxresults=20&val-base-0=cota%20link%20downtown&fld-nav-0=YMD_date&val-nav-0=2004%20-%04&docref=news/10DADDE7DA474B80 needs a login to access, may discuss a number of defunct routes(?);
58. "Free CBUS Downtown Circulator Launches", Columbus Underground, news article announcing launch of a new route, no discussion of any other routes; 59. "AirConnect ridership low, but COTA officials confident it will increase", The Columbus Dispatch, news article discussed AirConnect route only;
60. "Transit System Redesign", COTA, title is "Here’s how COTA improved its route network", public relations piece by COTA about how the network redisign has improved service to the public, nn;
61. "The Columbus Bus Network Redesign Boosted Ridership", Streetsblog USA of June 1, news article about how network redesign has led to increased passenger numbers, may be appropriate for a "Network history" subsection in the COTA history section;
62. "New COTA bus line promises faster service across town", WBNS-10TV, news article about, at the time, new CMAX service, only covers one route;
63. "COTA No Longer Provides Direct Service to Airport", The Lantern, news article about discontinuation of a route, and alternatives, AirConnect (only a mention), and non-COTA ones;
64. "Transit System Redesign", duplicate of reference no. 60;
the bulk of the references come from COTA so do not meet notability requirements, the majority of the others cover one route only, the few remaining are only mentions so none of them are useable to attain WP:NLIST. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: It does not make sense to delete this article when List of bus routes in London exists. The information here is adequately sourced, so if this was merged this ought to be retained, creating an extremely long article wherever it is merged. Thus this is another reason why it should remain a seperate article. NemesisAT (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These are not the sources I provided here, as they are only the ones I needed to cite to back up the information in the article. You are using the wrong list for looking at LISTN. Independent reliable sources need to exist on the topic per LISTN, I do not need to be citing them if I have no need to. ɱ (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep As per editor "Uses x" above. And I look forward to a badgering reply from one of our two outspoken friends here- presumably Ajf773 in this case :) MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given the--ahem--extensive back and forth above by multiple users on both sides, it seems clear that there is simply no consensus to be had here. We can all argue about this until we are blue in the face, but quite frankly it does not seem like any definitive consensus is going to be formed here and this discussion should be closed as no consensus.DocFreeman24 (talk) 02:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not a valid reason. You are supposed to give your opinion, not assess what the consensus is. (The closer of the discussion will do that)--Rusf10 (talk) 03:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The nomination is premised on the argument that the routes are not notable and that they run afoul of WP:NOT. The discussion above (which also happens to include several well-reasoned keep votes that I agree with) illustrates that there is a distinct lack of consensus to support those views. It's perfectly appropriate to point that out and argue, as I have, that this warrants keeping the article (which is what happens at AFD when there is a lack of consensus). DocFreeman24 (talk) 03:43, 8 June 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_COTA_bus_routes&oldid=1027728205"