Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RATB route 104

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 delete. Proto::► 23:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RATB route 104[edit]

RATB route 104 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This seems to fail WP:NOT, specifically, that WP articles are not simply "a travel guide." Additionally, no assertion of notability, or verifiable third-party sources are listed. Charlie 12:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as advertising. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 12:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 13:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Chairman Talk Contribs 14:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, individual bus routes are not normally notable unless they have some special feature (eg: being part of a Bus rapid transit system) Tubezone 16:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No bus routes, no vending machines, no mailboxes. Not inherently notable, and lacks multiple independent published sources.Edison 16:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I fail to see why this particular bus route is being picked out, considering that we have many articles on bus routes from all over the world. See, for example, Category:London bus routes. As an inclusionist, I believe that the bus route articles can be very useful, and not only for "travel guide" style information, but also by providing things like technical information, what vehicles are used on a route, the vehicle history, and stuff like that, which can actually be very useful when seeking a comprehensive source of information about a city's public transit system (i.e. this type of use is not travel-oriented, but rather research-based/informative). As to sources: what sources are you exactly looking for? Sources confirming that such a route exists? Sources confirming the termini and stops? This was taken from [1]. The information about the vehicles used was taken from [2], which is provided in the External Links. Finally, I fail to see what detriment this article brings to the encyclopedia, and how deleting it will in any way make a better encyclopedia. Ronline ✉ 12:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The point is to try and consolidate the long lists of stub articles, that often aren't updated properly. The general precedent is that only the transit authority that operates city buses, , such as the Chicago Transit Authority, should be listed, unless there's something notable about a route. London is an exception, not a rule. Also, the British bus nuts probably ain't going to be happy that you brought attention to their London bus route articles, it'll give the deleitionists ideas. I wouldn't have a problem with having this and the London buscruft transwikied to Wikitravel, which is really where it belongs, IMHO. Tubezone 15:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But there is very little to do with travelling in these articles. Most of the information relates to technical aspects of the route, particularly what vehicles were used, etc. In this way, the information is encyclopedic, and would be rather irrelevant at Wikitravel (i.e. why would travellers be interested that RATB route 104 used DAF SB220 buses before Mercedes Citaro, and that they are based at Pipera bus depot?) Ronline ✉ 03:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - why is London an exception? If London stays, then so should Bucharest. Biruitorul 22:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First thing, please read WP:INN. It shouldn't be an exception, and that's why the London buscruft ought to go, too, so people don't run that example up the flagpole to show that bus routes in other places deserve articles. The flip side of the argument is that there's like two gazillion bus routes that don't have articles, what's special about this one? No notability is asserted. Tubezone 22:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I suppose I could change my opinion if this list were made more comprehensive, along these lines, or if London were also targeted for deletion. Do get back to me when that happens. Biruitorul 00:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think this comes down to a classic deletionist vs inclusionist debate. Tubezone: you're saying that just because other bus routes aren't included, these shouldn't be either. As a person who sees Wikipedia as constantly-expanding and gradually including more and more particular and detailed information, I believe that it would be bloody great to see articles on as many bus routes as possible. To me, Wikipedia is about two things: depth of information and quality. How exactly will deleting this article enhance any of those aims? Ronline ✉ 03:05, 24 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/RATB_route_104&oldid=1071582528"