Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of RTC Transit 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 no consensus. slakr\ talk / 11:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of RTC Transit routes[edit]

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

WP:NOT the place to host a list of current bus routes, that's what the company website does. A list of non notable routes does not a notable subject make. Fram (talk) 06:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per WP:NOTDIR. Bus routes are ephemeral and are properly the domain of transit system websites. Mangoe (talk) 12:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Are you planning on nominating everything in Category:Lists of bus routes? If not, why is this one being singled out? Vegaswikian (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Having one giant discussion for all of them would be unwieldy, and there may be differences in notability. Having separate discussions for all of them at the same time would overwhelm AfD. So I picked two, one recent that brought this to my attention, and one other. Fram (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification I have brought up the same issue with List of ABQ RIDE Transit routes, and your point is also being discussed there. ®amos 16:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep many, many other bus systems have articles like these. I think one of the large bus systems in a major city is significant enough to have its own article. Staglit (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually this is a county wide transit system so the city portion is really a small subset of the routes. However it also covers the Las Vegas Strip and the airport. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I think one of the large bus systems in a major city is significant enough to have its own article." Yes, that's why we have RTC Transit, which is not (and will not be) up for deletion. The deletion discussion is for the separate sprawling list of their routes though. Fram (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you are OK with merging the list back into the article? Vegaswikian (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not OK with that, as I don't think it improves that article in any way; but I can't stop it from happening. Fram (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing a reason to keep lists of bus routes at all, as I explained above. Mangoe (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NOTDIR as per WP:NOTDIR discourages lists of "indiscriminate" content. This list is very discriminate as being specifically routes in a specific transit system and is acceptable per WP:LIST. --Oakshade (talk) 23:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A list of 24-hour pharmacies in Las Vegas would be discriminate and useful to some people but it is not what Wikipedia is for.--Charles (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Oakshade: yes, we can make many verifiable lists of non notable but related things. WP:NOTDIR is, contrary to what you claim, not about "indiscriminate", that would be WP:INDISCRIMINATE, the section about "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". But NOTDIR is the section on "Wikipedia is not a directory". That a list doesn't violate one aspect of WP:NOT is irrelevant (certainly when that section isn't even the deletion argument), you should try to refute the argument that it violates NOTDIR instead. Fram (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A list of 24-hour pharmacies isn't as notable as bus routes. We're not making articles for each individual bus route here. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the same reason a local fast food restaurant isn't notable. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what makes a local bus route more notable? They are all local services.--Charles (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • One individual route is rarely ever notable, and nobody is suggesting that any route here is. This and the others that Fram wants to delete are lists of these routes. In smaller articles (Huntington Area Rapid Transit, Fredericksburg Regional Transit if it's ever written, ABQ RIDE, etcetera), these routes can be added as a section, but this one is far too large not to have the bus route list split off. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's good arguments to be made on both sides here, but Wikipedia is, indeed, not a directory, and it is not a travel guide. The list of routes does not appear to pass WP:GNG; sources report on the company, but not its routes. Whether or not the lists of routes are suitable as WP:SPINOUTs of the transit system articles (i.e. "this would normally be in the main article, but it would be too long there") is a good question, but for bus (and, for that matter, air) routes, I would be inclined to argue no, if only because they can (as has been mentioned) be altered at any time. Now, perhaps this is the sort of article that should be part of Wikipedia, and I can see that argument, but that, IMHO, would require a change to WP:NOT, and until that is done this is a delete candidate per "not a travel guide". - The Bushranger One ping only 21:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not find some historical information and change the focus of the list? Many bus routes have been essentially unchanged for a surprisingly long time, even in newer cities such as Vegas and Orlando. --NE2 17:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but modify so that this isn't a travel guide. The "places of interest" column is problematic, but the list of bus routes format is not. Having a paragraph before each group of numbers would contribute significantly to making this more encyclopediac. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment unfortunately, your suggestion of getting rid of the places of interest would satisfy the WP:NOTTRAVEL section, but adding paragraphs about the route would violate it again. then there is still the argument of WP:NOTDIR. The argument rages on! ®amos likes messages! 18:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not about places of interest, but about the geographic orientation of the routes, their history, etc - and it should be limited to related groups of buses rather than individual routes. Something like "the 600 series routes were added as part of the XYZ program in 2001, with an expansion of service to Podunk in 2005. The routes run primarily on east-west boulevards in the northern part of the city." List of MBTA bus routes, one of my pet projects, is a good example - it provides a useful explanation of some of the stranger routes, and traces the evolution of others from streetcar lines. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hey, I'm on your side, I personally think these lists are relevant to the article at hand, lest we go through all of Wikipedia with a tine tooth comb. I'm only concerned because I'm watching this same argument on several fronts (See List of ABQ RIDE Transit routes). I do like how your article is set up, and I applaud you for your work. ®amos likes messages! 22:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I just wish the nominee and his supporters understood this. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NOTDIR. I have reread that based on the discussion here and this type of list does not appear to be discouraged. Then we have the issue of what to do with the content. Some suggest removing it, it appears that this is due to the fact that moving it back to the main article would overload that. If we want to remove this type of information from every transit article, then that is a subject for and RFC to change policy and guidelines. There is a distinction between WP:TRAVEL and WP:NOTDIR, but the former especially, is very subjective. Clearly if we listed every stop, or the travel times between points that would violate WP:TRAVEL. But it does not appear that the list in its current form does. I think many of the points above are about ways to improve the article. Those should be remembered by those who work on the article in the future. Which reminds me that AfD is not for cleanup. That is what the reason to delete by some here appears to be. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2014 (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_RTC_Transit_routes&oldid=1070259921"