Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney bus route 380

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 of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sydney bus route 380

I don't think Wikipedia is an appropriate place for articles on bus routes that aren't particularly notable or famous. There's also a risk that the information on such a page could change fairly quickly without contributors noticing. My main disagreement is that the Wikipedia page is really only rehashing the content of the Sydney transport information website. -- Netsnipe 07:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. If the article is correct and this is a replacement for the Bondi Tram, it has been operating for 36 years. However, there is always a potential for bus routes to change. The other problem is that bus routes can change and it isn't a term that people would search for. Capitalistroadster 07:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. On reflection, I can't see many people looking up Wikipedia for this. Capitalistroadster 07:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 07:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a bus schedule. --Coredesat 09:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  Honestly how can so many people agree with this? The article is not a bus schedule and does not attempt to give a schedule. It is about the route itself. The article gives details that are not found in a bus schedule, summarises information in ways not found in a bus schedule, gives wikipedia-links to stops which you don't get from a bus schedule, and does not list arrival times. It is a Wikipedia article, not a bus schedule. —Pengo 16:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Coredesat Kevin 10:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Per Coredesat. Cnwb 10:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone's argument. --Roisterer 12:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone above. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 14:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As others above point out, this is what Wikipedia is not. -- Docether 19:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Buscruft. --DaveG12345 22:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete individual bus routes in Sydney are not notable. The situation with List of Melbourne tram routes is thoroughly different as they are long established and have a degree of permanence, and are better written; they are more analogous to pages about railway lines. Jammo (SM247) 23:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  This is the most subjective and rediculous comment I've seen. Bus routes in Sydney are well established and rarely change. The bus routes put up for deletion have been the same since long before Wikipedia started. Being "worse written" is not a reason for deletion. This is a long established route. —Pengo 04:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Is the busiest bus route in Australia, heavily used by tourists and locals alike, travels through and to popular Sydney destinations. Hasn't been up long enough for others to contribute to. MrHarper 02:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

  Comment Frequency is not an indicator of notability. If that were so, infrequently served stations on the Sunshine Coast and in the Hunter Valley would not have pages. Bus routes change in a way permanent corridors cannot. At best, this can go on the main Sydney Buses page, as this is not like bus upgrade zone, which is a package of upgrades and not just a collection of unrelated routes, and not an article about the actual path of each route. SM247 04:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

  I do not see why you make the assumption that frequency would be a yes or no factor in notability. High volume equals notability for me, where low volume is not the opposite. Ansell 10:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

  Volume is equally a non-factor in notability. Individual bus routes are not notable because they are not geographical features in the fashion of tram or train corridors. It makes no assertion of notability except for its frequency, which would equally make any number of stretches of road in metropolitan areas in Australia also worthy of a page if they had equivalent frequencies. It reads like a bus guide and not encyclopaedic information. At best, as I said, it can form part of Sydney Buses or List of bus routes in Sydney. Are we to have a separate page for all 300-odd STA routes, given that three have already popped up including one of absolutely no notability (the 410, a peak-only route)? SM247^{My Talk} 11:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Historical bus route operating for nearly 50 years, following the route of the old tramline, operating since 1884. --Alexxx1 ^{(talk/contribs)} 05:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Alexxx1. Ansell 10:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as above. I think there is a role for major Sydney bus routes, but agree that a separate page for the 300 odd STA routes would be a bit silly. A precedent has been set- the London Bus pages anyone? 144.140.62.104 21:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Comment - I think this should be deleted, but I think this information should go in an article on Sydney's bus routes. Those sorts of pages have been declared to be worthy of inclusion in WP, but not an article on each route. (JROBBO 23:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC))
• Delete - per WP:NOT. If there is a page on Sydney's bus routes and if this is appropriate to be included in there, then it should be there instead, definitely not an article on its own.--Konstable 01:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  What part of WP:NOT please? There is nothing there to say bus routes are not appropriate. —Pengo 04:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - the relevant information is already covered in Trams in Sydney and a brief 'notes' entry can easily be created on the List of bus routes in Sydney (there is already such a section for some of the routes in the tables but not others). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SM247 (talk • contribs) (my apologies)
• Strong Delete! - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Should be merged with articles on Oxford Street, Sydney and/or Bondi Road, Sydney assuming they exist. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 03:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• 'Keep' per above. --JJay 03:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per pretty much everyone above, esp. those at the top of the page. Inner Earth 11:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If this were a historic overview then fine; It is not. The small historical section can be merged with Sidney. It differs from railway lines in that it is not a static feature. Also, nothing inherently notable. BlueValour 15:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

  Sydney bus routes have rarely changed in the past, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so let's not make predictions about what they will do in the future. The bus route has historical significance which would surely not be appropriate to "Sidney", an article about a city of 4 million people. You can't expect the article to come fully formed with a long f'n history. Deleting articles before they can start is idiotic. —Pengo 04:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep for its usefulness i've often looked up bus and tram routes on Wikipedia, which have more detailed, accessable and informative info than the timetables (which are usually linked to). —Pengo 15:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per others. This is a major route in a major city. An56 04:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, we don't need articles about (busy or not)bus routes in every major cities, only notable bus routes should have their own article. --WinHunter ^(talk) 13:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

  None of the items under that heading can be applied to bus routes. Like the most of the other "delete" entries here, no valid reason is given. —Pengo 08:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Ste4k 06:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. bogdan 08:51, 3 July 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.