Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of London school bus routes

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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of London school bus routes[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, WP:PRIMARY, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL. The article is purely a directory of primary source data and lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Charles (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's still informative, which is good. There are many subjects that can only be properly sourced with primary sources. I have also seen several transport-related articles with no or little good sources and yet no one touches them, so what is that bad about buses, but not trams and trains? Adam Mugliston Talk 21:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that primary sources can be appropriate depending on the context. The Tube Map, for example, is a primary source, produced by TfL for its own network, but its use is so widespread and popular consensus is so strong towards it being accurate, that it's considered not to have bias, which is one of the problems primary sources sometimes have. --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral—I'm on the fence about this one. If kept, I would strongly suggest that this be collapsed into a table by losing all of the infoboxes and using those data points as cells in a table. Then include the comments as a column. Imzadi 1979 → 02:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A perfectly valid list, per WP:LIST. WP:NOTDIR is meant for indiscriminate "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". This list is very discriminate and it is in no manner a repository of a loosely associated topics." I fail to see how a school bus route list is considered a "travel guide." --Oakshade (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indiscriminate "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" is only paragraph 1 of WP:NOTDIR. Paragraphs 4 and 8 are more relevant for this article. A list of Tesco conveniance stores in London would be discriminate and probably more useful but not what Wikipedia is for and not encyclopedic.--Charles (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect to List of bus routes in London. WP:NTS suggests that overall transport systems are notable (which TfL definitely is, and TfL buses probably are), whereas individual routes should just be listed under that. I can't think of a good reason why the school bus system is notable in its own right. --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note: an earlier version of this list was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London School Buses. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although there is excessive detail here, there is value in keeping lists of bus routes as a valid alternative for those who would otherwise wish to create articles on an individual route. As for the school buses being separate this keeps the list a manageable size. Sussexonian (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2012 (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.