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

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2015 January 7.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. SpinningSpark 13:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Singapore[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOT and WP:OR. Charles (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - We ain't a directory of bus routes. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The page is remarkably well-sourced and so obviously isn't OR. It doesn't have enough historical perspective and so might be merged with bus transport in Singapore, pending a better treatment. I can't see any reason to delete this. Andrew D. (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are dozens of lists of bus routes for major metro transit systems around, so that pretty much spikes WP:NOT, which doesn't really apply. I've NO idea how anyone could think an article with 143 sources is OR, none. I agree there ought to be a lot more meat on the bones here, but that's a content problem, not a notability problem. Nha Trang ^Allons! 20:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, there's an essay by that name, and even if it was enforceable policy--- which it ain't--- the concept's BS. Precedent rules Wikipedia. High schools aren't notable because they come with reliable sources, they're notable because a hundred AfDs on high schools closed with Keeps. Geographical locations are kept not because they meet SIGCOV, but because a whole bunch of AfDs just stipulated that they had to exist. Actually I was wrong: there aren't dozens of lists of bus routes for metro areas. There are hundreds. [1] Want to file AfDs on them because bus route lists aren't notable, knock yourself out. Nha Trang ^Allons! 21:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is original research because it is compiled from primary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source which is supposed to be written mainly from secondary sources. It specifically fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Only people with an obsession with transport minutiae would think this is encyclopedic material.Charles (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to find substantial secondary sources such as the TransitLInk Guide or Singapore Bus Guide. As for obsessive transport minutiae, how about this long disused transport route? The nominator seems quite content to document the detailed twists and turns of that numbered route and so, per WP:SAUCE, should not be attacking the similar work of others. Andrew D. (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think most people would consider Roman roads of encyclopedic interest. They don't make them anymore.Charles (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first belongs to a statutory board of the government; the second seems to be a publisher of maps - if sources such as that are evidence of notability, would lists of streets in each UK county also be acceptable? Peter James (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're still misreading WP:OR, Charles. It explicitly states that primary sources are okay to be used for straightforward declarations of fact, and that they're only disallowed if you try to draw an analysis from them. Using a primary source to state that the 22 Bus services X route is exactly the sort of straightforward, non-controversial fact that OR permits. Nha Trang ^Allons! 20:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources may be used to cite specific facts in otherwise secondary sourced articles but compiling whole articles from primary sources is original research. Per Wikipedia:No original research "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them."Charles (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's in there too; I'm glad you've now read the guideline. How about reading the list of sources in the article now, where you'd see that they're not all from SBS Transit? There are several news articles in there. Nha Trang ^Allons! 22:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I can see to indicate significant independent coverage outside the local area as required by WP:GNG.Charles (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's another widely believed fallacy. GNG doesn't say anything of the sort. You might be confusing it with WP:GEOSCOPE, which refers to events. Nha Trang ^Allons! 22:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per reasons given by Nha Trang DCB1927 (talk) 08:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simply stating "Keep" without providing a legitimate reason won't help your case with keeping it, Editors are expected to put a better reason forward than simply putting "Keep. –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: - saying "Keep per Nha trang" is no different than you saying "Delete per nom". You're endorsing another editors view. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 19:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dusti: - The user originally put Keep with no reason, I made the above comment and so he expanded on his reason after (I wished he actually put the reason underneath as opposed to above but I didn't see much point causing a fuss... )–Davey2010 • (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actioned DCB1927 (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: reasons been given below Gemsdare (talk) 13:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simply stating "Keep" without providing a legitimate reason won't help your case with keeping it, Editors are expected to put a better reason forward than simply putting "Keep. –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a need to delete this page as same goes to other page that related to this page also. Gemsdare (talk) 10:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Both users directly above had wrote "Keep" without providing any reason [2] [3], After I made them aware of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages#Arguments without arguments they both then amended there comment (As said above I wish they added there reason below my reply as opposed to simply changing there comment but didn't wanna cause a fuss - They provided a reason after me nagging so left it at that.) .... I hope that's cleared the confusion :) –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This appears to be a variant on the theme I'm seeing with UK bus company articles with Charles and Davey. Their collective belief of what is and isn't notable in the field of bus transport seems to be extremely ill-informed, and their views seem to be more based on an inherent dislike of the idea that Wikipedia should contain any bus related information at all. Purely because of my job I'm more familiar with UK buses (or "bus fan" as they prefer to insultingly refer to it as) than Singapore, but I do know that, because of the history and size of the place, much like Hong Kong, it gets much more attention than you would expect of just a similarly sized piece of a larger country. Indeed, like Hong Kong, it gets a lot of coverage in UK publications because a lot of the output of the UK bus manufacturers has historically, and indeed still does through Alexander Dennis, end up there. And from what I understand, their bus route network is every bit as centrally planned and crucial to the smooth functioning of the city as London's is, meaning it gets a lot of coverage about that aspect alone, just like London does. Their issue seems to be that they simply don't realise that, for buses at least, most of the quality coverage is not on the internet, it's in the print media. As much as they might personally dislike it, frankly, if it's popular enough that people can get paid to write books and magazine articles about this sort of stuff, then it's not unimportant trivia or uninteresting to an encyclopedia. Statement like "We ain't a directory of bus routes" (when as seen, the site has countless lists of bus routes) and "Only people with an obsession with transport minutiae would think this is encyclopedic material" are frankly astounding in their ignorance of the real world coverage that exists of the various different aspects of bus transport, from vehicles to operators to yes, even routes in some cases. I have absolutely no doubt, not one shred, that neither Charles or Davey have ever once stepped foot in the transport section of a library or looked at a single magazine focussed on buses or bus transport. Their objection to this sort of material seems wholly irrational or dogmatic, rather than being based at all on the facts on the ground. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One slight admission here and Charles knows this too - ... I am a bus enthusiast and I do know rather alot about buses ... Just because I like buses tho doesn't mean I want to keep every bus-related article on here - there are ALOT and I do mean ALOT of bus enthusiasts on this site who always nominate & delete articles, Again pack it in with the commenting on myself & others.... –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have more than good reason to disbelieve these claims - see the NIBS deletion page for full details. And I'm sorry if you're taking it personally, but there's not really any impersonal way that anyone can say 'ignore person X because they don't know Z'. Due to the way you present your case, I really have no choice but to frame my objections based on your lack of knowledge of the subject or the sort of interest it gets in the printed media, which are of course inherently personal traits. If you don't like this, then rephrase your objections to these articles into one that is based on indisputable facts, the interpretation of which doesn't require consideration of your personal knowledge/experience/past actions. In other words, stop expecting other people to believe you just because you say they should, and start backing it up with some indisputable facts and logic (an example of an illogical thing to say is Wikipedia "ain't a directory of bus routes" when, as has been pointed out, Wikipedia has plenty of such lists). Notforlackofeffort (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:Other stuff exists.Charles (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, you've edited bus route articles yourself. What makes a list of buses of a national capital not notable, but London Buses route 82 is okay? West Midlands bus route 50? London Buses route 8? (Heck, you've edited on a couple dozen London bus route articles yourself. How do you figure they pass NOTTRAVEL?) Nha Trang ^Allons! 22:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:GNG; also per precedent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Worcestershire, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Greater Manchester and others (I disagree about NOTTRAVEL - that seems to have been intended for itineraries, recommendations, reviews, and general travel advice and information, rather than excluding lists just because they are related to transport, which can be used for travel, rather than other subjects such as politics or music - also as it would be absurd to exclude information because "Wikipedia is not a travel guide" and simultaneously declare it unsuitable for a travel guide). If there were several examples of coverage in reliable sources (beyond official records/announcements or the operators' own sites) or numerous notable routes it would be a more suitable list, but currently there's nothing to distinguish it from the deleted lists - "national capital", "major metropolitan areas" are not reasons to keep, only evidence of bias. Peter James (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a bus timetable. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I was going to close this but I don't want my weekend marred by the inevitable DRV. Closing rationale: "Strongest policy and guideline-based arguments given for deletion: indiscriminate directory-style entries (NOT#DIR), lack of notability (GNG). Strongest policy and guideline-based arguments given for retention: verifiable (WP:V) and reliably sourced." --slakr^\ talk / 09:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons explained above by other editors Transasia07 (talk) 11:15, 21 December 2014 (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.