Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in West Yorkshire

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. J04n(talk page) 23:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in West Yorkshire[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in West Yorkshire, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also it has only two sources. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 13:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 14:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have always thought the amount of effort, even for hardened bus geeks, to maintain this kind of information on here runs the risk of accumulating a lot of potentially out of date material. For example, in UK Geography articles, a simple reference that buses run through a place should be sufficient. The cogent point that this is not a travel guide, suggests this sort of stuff would be better off in WikiVoyage.Rimmer1993 (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to tell you that it's out of WikiVoyage's scope; they wouldn't accept it. Rcsprinter (whisper) @ 16:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They already have one bus travel article listing routes, most city/region articles contain lists of key routes some if not all of this information can be merged if cleaned up first. As I've said before their scope is still limited because it's directly taken from wiktravel's scope but there are discussions taking place on WV about widening that scope as part of the foundation Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTTRAVEL puts it best, and there's no other purpose to the article than that. Ducknish (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
question - I just read NOTTRAVEL. Which of its words implie that schedule travel services shouldn't e included in WP? [non-rhetorical question] almost-instinct 22:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep People keep saying WP is not a travel guide - but travel guides are things which say "go to this hotel, eat here, entertain yourself here". These pages are lists of factual information, no different from the repertoire of Opera North in the 1950s or lists of episodes of Family Guy almost-instinct 22:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the key differences is that bus routes change. New ones appear and old ones disappear. They also lack reliable third party sources, partially because of the non-premanaent nature of bus routes whereas Family Guy episodes can be sourced very reliably from non-directory sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete as non-notable and difficult or impossible to maintain reliably using third party sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 00:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. It is unfortunate that so many of these lists are on at the same time but they are no more notable than a list of hotels or a list of convenience stores.
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2013 (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.