Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Central Suffolk

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. ...to delete outright, at least. The principle Thyduulf supports is unresolved (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Peterborough) as to whether such bus route lists should be viewed as in furtherance of Wikipedia's coverage of real places, or should be viewed as a WP:NOTDIR violation. The assertion that "Wikipedia is not a bus directory" doesn't help answer the question, even if "true" (i.e., consensus-supported interpretation), as what makes an article a "directory" or not can be a matter purely of detail and presentation (e.g., including ephemeral info such as timetables, street intersections for bus stops) rather than subject matter. Particularly given the vast number of bus route articles that exist (take a look at Category:Bus routes in England, for example) it would probably be best to have an RFC or other centralized discussion to resolve the issue, rather than try to delete individual lists here or there when the reasons for deletion target the whole subject rather than being specific to that list. This particular list is unsourced at present, but I do not see an argument that it is unverifiable, nor is there a clear way to apply WP:GNG here. I encourage a merger discussion, however, per Redrose64, and I expect that this list will be back here if it is not improved or combined elsewhere. postdlf (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Central Suffolk[edit]

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

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory! Highhousefarm1 (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Highhousefarm1 (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This needs expansion so that it covers more than just the changes on 1 April 2011, but it is well established that lists of public transport provision in sizeable areas are encyclopaedic lists. If you look at actual travel guides and directories of bus routes you'll find they do not convey the same information as encyclopaedic lists of bus routes such as this one. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without prejudice to recreation, as the nominator has recently been blocked as a sockpuppet whose alternate account voted "Keep" in at least one other related discussion. See [1] for further information. --NellieBly (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This page is being updated and contains info on several places. It is a notable page. The user who has created this is not a sockpuppet, and his other account is now being deleted by him. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was talking about User:Highhousefarm1, the nominator of the AFD, not you, the creator of the page. What other account, incidentally? --NellieBly (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please note that the nominator has since been unblocked by the admin who blocked him. See [2]. Hence, the closing admin should not take the block into account against him. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely unsourced article, except for a link to a petition which (a) is not a reliable source and (b) does not mention most of the routes listed in this article. Also, Wikipedia is not a bus directory. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also, the use of randomly colored numbers in this article with no explanation violates the Manual of Style guidelines on colors. That's not a reason to delete the article, it's just a complaint I am offering here in case anyone wants to explain the colors within the article. Otherwise, even if the article is kept, the colored text is likely to be de-colorized. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand what that has got to do with anything here? Yes the colours need explaining or removing, but that's irrelevant as to whether the page is kept or not, so why mention it? Thryduulf (talk) 09:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I mentioned that issue here because this AfD discussion is bringing more attention to the article, and, consequently, mentioning problems with the article here raises the likelihood that someone will fix those problems. I think I have figured out an explanation for the colors; they are probably supposed to represent the colors associated with the respective bus operating companies. But the use of those colors still interferes with accessibility (even for non-colorblind users, the numbers in yellow are basically illegible), and would be unnecessary and (in my opinion) unattractive even if everyone had equal ability to distinguish color. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The colours refer to the colours of the operating companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam mugliston (talk • contribs)
- I previously mentioned that problem at Talk:List of bus routes in Central Suffolk#Overcoloured. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to article covering the whole of Suffolk. Most of the rest of England is covered by county-wide articles, don't see why Suffolk should be split down further. Suffolk is not exactly bursting with bus routes - compare Greater Manchester which could be split into ten, but isn't. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Metro90, Satisfies neither general, nor sector specific notability guidelines. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a bus timetable. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 30 March 2011 (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.