Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Portsmouth area

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Merge may be a viable option, discussion should continue on the talk page. Courcelles 03:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Portsmouth area[edit]

List of bus routes in Portsmouth area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a place for travel guides - that is what Wikitravel is for. Nor is it a place for minority interests such as bus/plane/train spotters - that is why the foundation set up Wikia. Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 11:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revising my nomination for those who may not have read the specific guidance in WP:NOTDIR - WP:NOTGUIDE states that travel guide content belongs at Wikitravel or Wikia travel instead. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 14:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A simple list of bus routes is neither a directory or a Travel Guide. Re WP:NOTDIR. A list of bus routes is not "Genealogical entries", "The White or Yellow Pages", "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business", "Sales catalogs", "Changelogs or release notes", "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations", "A complete exposition of all possible details" nor really a "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics", so WP:NOTDIR does not have any points within that a list of bus routes would contravene. Re WP:NOTGUIDE, I won't list all the points again, but the only one that could be argued a list of bus routes is against is point 2, "Wikipedia is not a Travel Guide". However, this is referring more to using Wikipedia as a sort of holiday travel guide with tourist destinations, restaurant, hotel or venue as it says in the text. You wouldn't use a list of bus routes to actually plan a trip out on the bus, therefore a list of bus routes is not a Travel Guide. You'd need the complete bus timetable for it to be anywhere near a travel guide. Arriva436talk/contribs 18:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Keep - IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion.  Adam mugliston  Talk  11:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - And WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason for a keep. Show me one substantial, independently published source for ANY of these Original Research Bus Route Cruft pieces, please. Carrite (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a revised List of bus routes in Hampshire, a county-wide article to match with all of the other List of bus routes in England. Arriva436talk/contribs 12:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - is there a particular reason why all of these have been nominated seperately? It would have made it much eaiser if there was a joint nomination. Arriva436talk/contribs 12:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nor is it a place for minority interests such as bus/plane/train spotters - that is why the foundation set up Wikia." - what? Where on earth does this appear in policy? Using this logic, every article about buses - including four GAs, one of which is about an individual route - would be deleted. If you really feel that minority interests shouldn't be represented, why did you write List of artists who have performed at the Colston Hall, which gets less than one-third of the views that this article gets? This smacks of personal bias, and should be ignored by the closing admin. And it's been copied across ten of these AfDs! There are plenty of good reasons why this article either shouldn't exist or should be rewritten in a different format, but this is not one of them. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Buses in Portsmouth, another important prose topic that remains redlinked despite the presence of multiple sources. The list itself should form part of that article, with a small amount of the current level of detail removed. If we can get consensus for this I'll do the rewrite myself unless someone else wants to. (Overtaken by events.) Alzarian16 (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is currently on my to-do list. I was planning on remaking this article to contain prose and the list, as soon as I finish revamping Southampton, so I will happily do it.  Adam mugliston  Talk  15:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heh, turns out there was enough content on this that I decided to write a new article at that title. My !vote now becomes merge, probably to List of bus routes in Hampshire, for basically the same reasons that I gave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Eastleigh & Romsey among others. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're making the same OR flaw as the article in discussion. Gosport and Fareham are separate towns, not part of Portsmouth. Gosport has never had a bus link to Portsmouth, Fareham has as many to Southampton as it does Portsmouth. Provincial, until taken over by Southampton never ran services in Portsmouth. The fact the First centre there southern division on Southampton does not link the histories. Additionally, PCT was a post 1988 company, not pre 1988. From 1936 until then it was city of portsmouth passenger transport department [1] Nuttah (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I don't follow at all? Are you talking about the new Buses in Portsmouth article? If so, can you point out the OR regarding Fareham and Gosport please, as I certianlly can't see any. Gosport only gets mentioned three times, Fareham four, none in a way I would consider to be OR. Arriva436/talk/contribs 20:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • 'Other services into the city were operated by Southdown Motor Services and the Gosport & Fareham Omnibus Company' No, Gosport & Fareham Omnibus, Provincial or Hants & Dorset did not operate services in Portsmouth. Not as private concerns, not after 1926 when the city banned all other operators, not after 1948 after Southdown were readmitted and not as National Bus Company when anything east of Fareham centre was Southdown's, including districts of Fareham. They did however, operate many services into Southampton. 'Prior to bus deregulation and the privatisation of National Bus Company in 1986, Gosport & Fareham was merged with the western part of Hants & Dorset to form People's Provincial' Again, this has nothing to do with Portsmouth. People are still conflating First's current operational structure as implying disparate areas have a shared history.Nuttah (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're right in most respects. For some reason I assumed that Gosport & Fareham served Portsmouth when there was no evidence that they did, and I've now corrected that. The part about the creation of Provincial is relevant since they went on to play a major role in Portsmouth. Where the article says PCT, it refers not to the post-1986 Portsmouth City Transport but the pre-1986 Portsmouth Corporation Transport, which was indeed also known as City of Portsmouth Passenger Transport Department but is referred to by the shorter name in most secondary sources. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh, almost forgot, do you have any sources to support the historical stuff? According to the sources I used Provincial was never owned by Southampton - it was part of First before Southampton was - and operated into Portsmouth as an independent from 1991, right after the start of Transit Holdings' 100% minibus operation. Southdown were back operating in Portsmouth at least as early as 1946, not 1948, because that's when the joint running agreement was signed. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hold on, you're wrong about H&D as well. Route X71 was a joint operation between Hants and Southdown running from Southampton to Portsmouth in the 1970s. Mentioned in industry sources at the time (I can't show you that, obviously) and here (not sure how reliable this is), and was recently part-recreated during a running day that I went to, and that will be repeated next year. I'm starting to wonder just how thoroughly you researched your last comment - that's a minimum of three historical errors, and no sources to support anything else you say. Before accusing others of original research, check that you aren't doing the same, or you risk coming across as an inaccurate hypocrite. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • So it wasn't original research, it was factually wrong. I thought it didn't seem like OR. Arriva436/talk/contribs 15:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a compendium of popular culture. It is not a universal list of bus routes, nor should it be. There are places on the internet where this information may be rapidly obtained, riders do not and should not be coming to Wikipedia for this information. Carrite (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK then, if you actually check, you will find that "There are places on the Internet where this information may be rapidly obtained" is completely wrong, and that actually this information is very hard to find all in one place, especially for Hampshire-wide information. Unless of course you did actually check before making such a statement, and you can give a link that will show the same information in a similar format...? Besides, why should information about buses not be included on Wikipedia, when 1) there is no policy against it and 2) There is far more information about train, ferry and plane services, meaning without buses there's an odd hole in coverage? Arriva436talk/contribs 19:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so you're saying this should be kept since it's valid original research that can't be found elsewhere?!? Lists of bus routes are pretty much a textbook definition of unencyclopedic local cruft. Carrite (talk) 03:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If lists of bus routes were "textbook definitions of unencyclopaedic local cruft" then they would be mentioned, explicitly or implicitly, in at least one of the pages we have giving examples of things that Wikipedia is not for. However, they don't appear in such lists because they are neither unencyclopaedic nor cruft - unless you are going to present any evidence to the contrary? Many of these list of bus route articles are sourced, none of the others has been shown to be unsourceable. Just because there is no single place on the internet that gives easily accessed encyclopaedic coverage of a subject does not mean that we should delete our coverage of the topic - indeed our job is to be that single, easily accessed provider of encyclopaedic coverage. Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Existing elsewhere is not a reason for content to be deleted, but a fundamental requirement for it to be kept, as WP:V makes perfectly clear. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is most unlikely that significant coverage in reliable secondary sources will ever be found for this material. The article fails General Notability Guideline, Notability of Standalone Lists guideline, Wikipedia is not a Directory, Wikipedia Stand Alone List Guideline Wikipedia is not a Travel Guide and Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information. If this sort of material is kept it is always liable to become outdated and a source of misinformation if editors concerned lose interest. Even if we have legal indemnity against any unfortunate consequences of providing wrong data we have a moral responsibility to avoid doing so, not to mention the potential damage to WP's reputation. It is not just a case of not liking it as there are sound reasons for not keeping it.--Charles (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. The Portsmouth article already contains a Transport section. If and when enough referenced encyclopaedic content from secondary sources exists maybe that can be split out into a separate transport article. If that grows sufficiently maybe we'll one day have a Buses in Portsmouth article. In the meantime this offers no value. The Portsmouth article already details operators in the city, the operator pages already offer greater detail (although I would question the detail there), all this does is list the routes but provides no added value. The edit war on 'colours', despite them being a transitory marketing method than anything of note, sums up the article. Additionally, I see little other than Original research for justification of what is included. Nuttah (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • See the Basingstoke AfD for my reply about refs.  Adam mugliston  Talk  21:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per my reply on the Basingstoke article, there are no refs and no answer as to the WP:OR issue. Nuttah (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)#[reply]
        • And per my reply there, I have explained that I will be getting on to that. Portsmouth is the next in line.  Adam mugliston  Talk  21:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • No you haven't. You provided a link that shows you are linking to bus company websites, none of which establish how WP:GNG is met or how you have decided what is Portsmouth Area apart from WP:OR. Nuttah (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, as you said it's a decision. Decisions can't be sourced, because it was made, in this case, by me. I chose the towns, which have a couple of bus routes linking them with each other.  Adam mugliston  Talk  21:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • You maybe should read WP:OR, in particular the lines that run 'To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented.' - you can't just add material because 'I chose the towns, which have a couple of bus routes linking them with each other.' It has to be sourced. Nuttah (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well, some things just have to be decided, you sometimes have to put a mark somewhere. I made a decision to have the towns, but when I revamp, I will change this article to Portsmouth & Southsea. I chose that, because the two towns are almost merged, there's no countryside border between them and they have several bus routes that join them.  Adam mugliston  Talk  21:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • As I said, read WP:OR - you cannot decide, OR is not a guideline, it is policy - unless you have references linking the subject you fall foul of it (History - Southsea has never existed indenpendently. it has always been part of Portsmouth.) Nuttah (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Oops again. Well, it can be Portsmouth and Waterlooville. It's like asking me to prove that Portsmouth is called Portsmouth. I can put a map, that shows all the bus routes that link the two. OK?  Adam mugliston  Talk  22:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • No it's not, you're still missing the point. To justify ANY article you need sources that cover that. If you want a Portsmouth and Waterlooville you need sources discussing that. You cannot invent a link Nuttah (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just being the list without having excessive timetable details makes this a normal article. It is not indiscriminate or over-detailed unless it starts listing the detailed routes. I am unable to understand the opposition to these articles if someone wants to maintain them. I similarly am unable to see that they are more functional in a combined article, though iI would not rule that out as a possibility if it would satisfy the objections. The important thing is the content, not the division into articles. Wikia is not a substitute. wikia has no requirements for reliable sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it is not indiscriminate can someone define what the original editor means by 'Portsmouth Area'? It certainly isn't they city council boundaries or the ONS Portsmouth Urban Area. From the discussion above I think it is pretty clear that the original editor 'invented' his own definition. Nuttah (talk) 07:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is explained at the top of the article.  Adam mugliston  Talk  07:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, but where is the justification for grouping these areas other than you thought it would be a good idea? Nuttah (talk) 07:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I told you already, I can give some maps for sources, that the towns have many connecting bus routes, but there's not much else and it has to be something.  Adam mugliston  Talk  08:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nominating 8 "list of bus routes in ..." LISTS, with 'rubberstamp' rationals, separately was pointless. If your rational was the same in all of them, why not do a single AFD for the Group of them. All my keep reasons are stated in the currently ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Peterborough (2nd nomination) Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a perfectly notable article which just needs a little expansion, is all. Rcsprinter (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a perfectly encyclopaedic list (please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Southampton, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Alton, Bordon and Tadley area and especially Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Peterborough (2nd nomination) for full reasoning). Regarding the title and scope of this article, List of bus routes in the Portsmouth area or simply List of bus routes in Portsmouth might be better. I'm not familiar with this area of the country, but bus route provision doesn't necessarily follow present-day political boundaries (doubly so for when the articles include historical information too), so it could easily be the area served by a coherent network of services. If it isn't, then the content should probably be reorganised into articles based around such groupings if such is not OR. These are not reasons to delete though.Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - per my comments [2] I disagree with the nomination statement. The article does require sourcing though. WormTT · (talk) 09:18, 27 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_bus_routes_in_Portsmouth_area&oldid=1138005604"