Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 157

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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 09:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 157[edit]

London Buses route 157 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A detailed breakdown of -- a bus route. Wikipedia is not a bus schedule, directory, or collection of indiscriminate information. From the creator of the monster hits London Buses route 181, London Buses route 130, London Buses route 124, and the unforgettable Bell Green, Sainsbury's! -- Calton | Talk 04:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The only potentially notable route - the 159 - isn't in there, after all. Tevildo 05:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is for this reason that I run OCTAWiki. I know damn well that those bus routes would be spontaneously obliterated if I stuck 'em here. Delete all. --Dennisthe2 05:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'll be AFDing the other three that Calton mentions. --Dennisthe2 05:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I haven't seen too many bus route articles, but this would be an excellent model. It covers a detailed history of the route and service. This is not a bus schedule, a directory OR a collection of indiscriminate information. Unfortunately WP:NOT is far too often abused to mean "anything I think doesn't belong on Wikipedia". It would help if relevant references to a Wikipedia criteria or guideline would be included, as WP:NOT, does NOT fly in this case. Alansohn 05:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't see many bus routes for the same reason you don't see many bus routes in a hardbound encyclopedia. WP:NOT very much applies here. That said, it does set a precedent for a transit-oriented wiki, which is pretty much one of my goals to further expand from the OCTAWiki link above. Not sure when it'll hit the street (!), but it's something to bear in mind. --Dennisthe2 05:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just went through my entire Encyclopedia Britannica and I cannot find a single Pokemon article, or any Seinfeld episodes or Star Wars planets. Surely you don't believe that any "hardbound encyclopedia" sets anything for Wikipedia. After all, all you've done is stated "anything I think doesn't belong on Wikipedia" without even bothering to dress it in something Wikipolicy-related. The existence of another place to put this information doesn't justify deletion either. After all, I've made specific suggestions about where all that Pokemon stuff can be inserted and no one has followed through on that idea. Alansohn 12:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not about to argue whether you've gone through all of EB, but EB seemsto ahve slightly (!) different standards. Besides, Wikipedia does not bend to you; you must bend to Wikipedia. That, and as I've said, there is a precedent for a transit-oriented wiki. Maybe the transit stuff doesn't belong here, but there need to be other places to put it. I'm searching out options. --Dennisthe2 17:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I went through both the Macropedia and Micropedia, and I still can't find Pikachu anywhere. Have you found any such articles in the print edition? I understand that people have an agenda to create a transit-based wiki, but here on Wikipedia, we use policies and standards that have been established to load traditional encyclopedia content, and thereby include many subjects that my Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't cover. You are one of many people who has incorrectly and misleadingly implied that there is a Wikipedia policy that forbids this article. It simply does not exists and your agenda to push this to another wiki is questionable. Alansohn 20:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment In response to your edit summary question: WP:N and WP:NOT are the policies in question. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information sometimes applies even if the information is verifiable. WP:N makes one type of distinction-is the information mentioned in nontrivial secondary sources? In all of these articles, I see use of only primary sources, so the answer seems to be "no". Seraphimblade 20:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment Again, the nomination makes explicit reference to WP:NOT, and you're pulling the same fast one on us all, arguing that it means anything you have decided it means. You cannot possibly read this article and tell me that it is an "indiscriminate collection of information". WP:NOT is sometimes a genuine issue, but in this case it is a poor excuse for deletion from those who seem to be utterly unable to come up with an actual explanation and rely on WP:NOT as a poor crutch. Alansohn 21:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Please keep in mind also WP:TINC. I am done discussing this with you. --Dennisthe2 22:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It's amazing how people who can't come up with a legitimate argument have to resort to the blame game and then walk away. I'd never assume that you're part of the cabal, because the cabal has much higher admission standards. It's disappointing that we still can't get a coherent explanation of how WP:NOT is relevant. Alansohn 03:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Everyone, please remember WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Alansohn, I believe that WP:N (multiple non-trivial secondary source mentions) applies regardless of WP:NOT. All sources in the article are primary. Seraphimblade 03:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Everything in the infobox, for a start, is directory-style information (fares? service frequency?), and cumulative listings of all this stuff makes up -- wait for it -- a directory. And what makes the difference between one bus route and another in this pile of bus routes? Pretty indiscriminate, if you ask me. What actual encyclopedia-like content exists is, essentially, for busspotters (dunno if they exist, but this IS the country that gave the world trainspotting and planespotting, so it wouldn't surprise me.
                  • Many towns have infoboxes. The town infoboxes list population, year established, latitude, longitude, mayor. What content often exists is little more than towncruft. They're all basically the same; just directory information that changes a little bit from one to the next. Yet, for some reason we have tens of thousands of these articles -- all almost entirely the same -- around the world. I would entertain your position if it made reference to an actual flesh-and-blood Wikipedia policy that forbids this article and requires its deletion. Other than that, my analogy for retention is equally as valid as your's for deletion. Alansohn 03:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I just went through my entire Encyclopedia Britannica... And when was it published? If it was published 10 or more years ago, that might hint at why current events aren't indicated in it. Betcha it doesn't mention the Indian Ocean tsunami or the 2006 US midterm elections, either. --Calton | Talk 00:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The tsunami and elections aren't in my Britannica. Are the AFDs for these articles up yet? Wikipedia is not paper, and we can afford to include quality, well-written, thoroughly-researched articles such as these. The fact that some people turn up their noses is a shallow elitism that proposes that "anything I'm interested in is important; anything I don't care about should be deleted." When you have a chance, please point me to the printed encyclopedia that has articles for each and every Pokemon character, Seinfeld episode and Star Wars planet.Alansohn 03:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Comment In reply to Alansohn (as stated in another AfD), WP:N does apply here. Source mentions must be nontrivial and secondary, and that's not the case here. Seraphimblade 02:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and a transit wiki would be by far the best way to settle this, and easier to keep current (and historical!)DGG 07:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Get rid of this. We are not a bus schedule and this appears to be a completely arbitrary bus route. MartinDK 07:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT the bus schedule (and the transit website would be better for that anyway.) No other assertion of notability-and really, how often do bus routes get mentioned in nontrivial secondary sources? Seraphimblade 08:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 09:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why aren't bus routes inherently notable? Anyway, the discussion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 1 where this was already dealt with at some length is of relevance. The bus routes often document the growth of London in a different way and help to understand periods such as the Second World War and its aftermath as they are part and a result of shifting population patterns. Regan123 09:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That bus routes are inherently unnotable does not mean that it is impossible for a notable bus route to exist. That, however, does not set a precedent for all bus routes - just the notable ones. --Dennisthe2 22:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except London Bus routes aren't inherently unnotable, just the opposite. We've been through this with the railways and in fact they have now been excluded from WP:LOCAL according to the latest discussions. Roads get rerouted and that doesn't make them inherently unnotable. Regan123 22:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Except London Bus routes aren't inherently unnotable, just the opposite. Sounds like the Special Olympics approach, where everything is "special". And roads are rerouted by large construction crews, while bus routes are rerouted by a couple of people with clipboards in a room somewhere.
          • bus routes are rerouted by a couple of people with clipboards in a room somewhere. Not in London they are not - it takes considerable research, effort, agreement, funding, contracts, tendering and so on....As to the special olympics, I'm not sure what you're getting atRegan123 00:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The bus routes often document the growth of London in a different way Do you know some reliable source somewhere that actually does this, or did you just pull this out of your hat? If you're suggesting that Wikipedia is or should be doing that, I have two words for you: original research. --Calton | Talk 00:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • A google search puts up results and sites if you want them. So not original research Regan123 00:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only the most notable and ones where a history can actually be provided. 800+ bus route articles running around would be pretty useless. RHB 11:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why bus routes and not train lines? Akihabara 12:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surely you understand how easy it is to alter a bus line, and how easy it is not to alter a train route. =^_^= Besides, I figure this, as theory - oftentimes a train is going to have more historical significance due to interregional connection and the inability of said train to be only slightly alterable (due to the issue with altering rails); a bus route is as flexible as the surrounding city streets for the most part, and metropolitan bus routes typically don't leave their metropolitan areas except to connect and transfer with other neighboring systems. That said, as I point out, there's a precedent for a transit wiki - but now you bring up the issue of whether trains belong there, too. Something for me to think about over my coffee. --Dennisthe2 17:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or minimally merge the lot somewhere per WP:LOCAL. JYolkowski // talk 15:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of a hundred + articles. Verifiable content. Not sensibly mergable. Nathanian 20:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That didn't save the hundreds of unremarkable mast stubs from deletion. MER-C 02:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My mobile phone, my desk calendar, and my 11.5 ounce (326 gram) can of Hills Bros Medium Roast Decaffeinated Coffee in front of me are all verifiable, and they're not getting articles, either. --Calton | Talk 00:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. If other editors want to AfD Pokemon articles, Seinfeld episodes or Star Wars planets that do not meet WP:Notability, I'd be all for it. - Aagtbdfoua 21:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No secondary sources. If "[t]he bus routes often document the growth of London in a different way and help to understand periods such as the Second World War and its aftermath as they are part and a result of shifting population patterns," let's see the scholarly articles documenting the impact of this bus route on that growth. Shimeru 03:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lack of scholarly articles is not a reason for deletion, it's a reason for a request for expansion or a request for sources. JROBBO 09:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lack of sources is a reason for deletion. And if the reason I quote above is the reason given for keeping, I want to see the sources that support that statement. We can't make a claim like that and leave it unsupported, and I believe it's a spurious claim in the case of at least this particular bus route. Shimeru 20:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Try this following a two second Google search. Morden opened in virtual countryside and the routes were for the housing estates in the area. It should also be noted that the article refers to the trolleybus replacement, part of the public transport history of South London. Regan123 20:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Nothing about bus schedules or timetables shown in there. GCFreak2 05:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the infobox:
Level: Daily (5:00 until 1:30)
Frequency: About every 12-15 minutes
Journey time : 60-70 minutes
Night: No night service
--Calton | Talk 06:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's in an infobox, and not part of the main article, nor does it claim to be; the rest of the article is more encyclopaedic. Some people need to stop clutching at straws to try and get what they don't like deleted. JROBBO 09:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article has a well-written history section which gives it a claim to being far more than directory-style information. And despite what some users are claiming, there is barely any directory-style information there. To delete an article based on that it should resemble a web page for a bus route. It doesn't. This is a good, well-written article on a bus route with historical information, and there's no reason why it should be deleted. JROBBO 09:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable in the context of London and scope for expansion. I'm satisfied that the article is not a timetable. MRSC • Talk 15:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; the history is useful (but needs citations). Some of the "cruft" like fares and stops should probably be removed though. It would be better with a main focus on the history, like Myrtle Avenue Line. There are going to be secondary sources from newspapers, and, at least for those that were once streetcars, books have been written on the subject. --NE2 16:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there is scheduling info, but the article itself seems encyclopedic enough. And I must tip my hat to anyone who can jot off a decently readable historical ency article about a frigging bus route. Ford MF 11:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT This has become a complicated issue. Articles on bus routes have survived 4 AfDs in the past, but there seems to be a wave of new half-complete articles causing AfDs like this to pop up again. These are:
  1. London Buses route RV1
  2. London Buses route T31
  3. London Buses route 157
  4. London Buses route 181
  5. London Buses route 130
  6. London Buses route 124
  7. London Buses route T33
  8. London buses route T32
  9. London Buses route C1
  10. London Buses route A10
  11. London Buses route 410
  12. London Buses route 312
  13. London Buses route 328
  14. London Buses route 202
  15. London Buses route 197
  16. London Buses route 196
  17. London Buses route 194
  18. London Buses route 28
  19. London Buses route 185
  20. London buses route 26
  21. London Buses route 91
  22. London Buses route 75

I propose that thay all be sent to my userspace so I can improve them to the neccessary standards set out in previos AfDs. Thank you --sonicKAI 03:03, 29 December 2006 (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/London_Buses_route_157&oldid=1069117083"