Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Peterborough

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. postdlf (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Peterborough[edit]

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

Unenclycyclopedic and non-notable content. WP is not a directory or guide. Similar articles for Sudbury and Downham Market have been deleted. Charles (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a directory.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 13:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails any kind of notability test. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Any kind? Did you even look for sources about bus routes in Peterborough?--Pontificalibus (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yes - No books on the subject and incidental mentions in books are often about international Peterborough's as the one in england. Incidental mentions in local Press, no mentions in national press incidental or otherwise. Scholarly Articles give overview of Bus services UK wide any mention of peterborough is incidental. Finally google hits - substantial number, but all I can see is re-printing of timetables and routes (primary sources) - no sources assert that these routes have any notability. So as I said fails to meet GNG or any sector specific notability guideline. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has no place in an encyclopaedia. Bazonka (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The content clearly is encyclopaedic, as we have numerous "List of bus routes in..." articles. Most English counties have one e.g. List of bus routes in Essex, List of bus routes in Derbyshire. Peterborough being a unitary authority is equivalent to a county in terms of control of the numbering of bus routes, so it should have it's own article. An analogy would be Bristol which is also a unitary authority and has List of bus routes in Bristol. The nominator's contention that Sudbury and Downham Market are similar is wrong, since these are minor towns within other counties. --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Other stuff exists I would also contend that Bristol and Derby should equally be deleted for lack on notability. Essex (like London) is reasonable because some of the individual routes are notable - meaning it is heading toward if not yet meeting our Stand Alone List policy. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such policy - I've yet to see a valid "delete" rationale other than a contention that this doesn't meet the general notability guideline. My response to that is that even though the article has references to reliable sources, this subject does not even have to meet the GNG - the first of Wikipedia'sFive Pillars states that we include elements of almanacs, and gazetteers. In that case information such as this is suitable for inclusion as long it is verifiable, which this is, and has some degree of notability consistent with other content in the encyclopaedia, which this does as I outlined above.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is Policy on Stand Alone Lists - it exists within our notability policy, From WP:NOTESAL
A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list.
- do you have a single let alone multiple reliable sources that discuss all the bus routes in Peterborough as a Group or a Set? I'm also concerned by the fact that you think that because we include elements of almanacs that we don't have to establish notability for that content - The farmer's Almanac publishes lists of recipes suitable specific days of the year, should Wikipedia automatically copy this list because exists or should we establish whether that information is notable first? An article completely source to primary documents is not notable, why not list everyone buried in my local graveyard, or the house prices of every property on my street - these are verifiable by multiple primary sources but they are not notable by wikipedia's standards and neither are lists of bus routes. Whether or not bus routes in other areas are notable is irrelevant to whether or not bus routes in Peterborough are. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not said we "don't have to establish notability for that content". In my two comments above I said clearly that sufficient notability is already demonstrated by (1) the sources given and (2) the fact that Peterborough is a unitary authority and on the same level as an English county when it comes to the administration of bus services. In applying the gazetteer/almanac test and not the GNG, this is sufficient.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this established by Policy or guideline anywhere at all? The sources given fail to meet any guideline on what is acceptable for notability (as defined in verifiability policy it requires third party coverage) and are similarly considered Original Research when no secondary source has previously collated and tabulated the data. Having a timetable for a bus route does not establish that route as notable - we have no policy or guideline claiming that is the case. Nor do we have a policy or guideline on defining a gazetteer/almanac test - in fact the only time I've seen something similar mentioned was in the attempt to class all fatal hull loss civil aviation accidents as automatically notable despite failure to meet GNG and that was soundly rejected. Please feel free to consider writing a new guideline for Bus Routes that supports your position, and if you get support for it then articles like this can exist. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines and policy stem from AfD outcomes; I have stated why this article should be retained - I am not currently aware of all previous UK bus list AfDs and might consider another attempt at a guideline when the result of this AfD is apparent. I think I've said enough here. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a perfectly valid standalone list of routes of a major bus system in a major city. Bus routes are integral parts of the workings of a city and that is very encyclopedic. I see "WP is not a directory" quotes frequently in bus route nominations but there is actually nothing in WP:DIRECTORY that bans list articles, nor list articles of bus routes. This isn't a " repositories of loosely associated topics " or anything of the like. I also notice the nom and the pack of delete voters are simply stating lists of bus routes are unencyclopedic in general and not making a case to delete this list article of this specific city's bus routes, yet they haven't touched the List of bus routes in London List of bus routes in Manhattan or the like which one would imagine are much more colossal violations of encyclopedic content to those who don't like bust list articles. This some kind of WP:POINT test case on a small market. --Oakshade (talk) 04:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this list and others in the East Anglia region because I have been working to clean up articles on that area, an area with few active Wikipedians it seems, not to make a point or target any particular "market". If this is not a directory what ever useful purpose does it serve? It is of no interest to the general reader, unencyclopedic, non-notable and largely original research.--Charles (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further to what Charles says, please reread WP:STAND in fact I'll quote it with emphasis.
Stand-alone lists and "lists of links" are articles that primarily consist of a list or a group of lists, linking to articles or lists in a particular subject area....
in order to be a stand alone list each entry has to be a link to an article on the subject of that individual bus route - and that article has to survive it's own notability test. Both London and Manhattan Achieve this - Essex is making inroads with some notable routes linked, Peterborough, Bristol, Derbyshire and plenty of others in no way approach this and instead consist of simple lists of information - they do not meet our criteria for stand alone lists and need to be deleted. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STAND is simply a style guideline recognising that most lists will link to other articles. There is no rule specifying all lists on Wikipedia must have each list entry linking to a separate article.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As mentioned before, nobody seems to be touching lists of bus routes in bigger cities. Peterborough is also a fairly major city. My argument would be, that if you don't want to look at it, don't, but leave for others who do. I created this and it takes a lot of hard work to perfect an article and it just wastes others work, while if it doesn't get deleted, it doesn't go into someone's way. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 09:58, 27 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.