Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney bus routes 100-199

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Note: the second nomination for deletion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sydney_bus_routes_100-199_(2nd_nomination).)

If this list has to go then all of the other ones would too, and every reference. The proposal is ridiculous, and it should be defeated; but at the very least the main page should stay. It's not an individual route page. (JROBBO 08:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC))

• Strong Keep - the List of bus routes in Sydney article for the reasons below:

The suggestion that this information is unmaintainable and/or a copy of the official information is erroneous and without foundation. Many Sydney-based authors update the article regularly and in advance of all changes released by the STA. After all, Wikipedia is intended to be dynamic and not static. Further, other articles use the route data, such as every railway station and some other minor pages. This is not a mirror as some may suggest, but a reference source by which the appropriate TT can be found at a glance. Another thing is that route lists are pretty common in Wikipedia and common examples are listed below.

1. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority bus routes
2. List of Melbourne tram routes
3. TransLink (South East Queensland) services - which has also recently survived a AfD debate.
4. Hong Kong bus route numbering
5. List of San Francisco Municipal Railway lines
6. MTA New York City Transit buses
7. Routemaster
8. Toronto buses and trolley buses
9. Sullivan Buses
10. Key MBTA bus routes
11. Category:London bus routes and so forth.

so WP:NOT would not really be valid. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 08:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per all the reasons in the nomination and I'll vote the same on any of the other bus route articles too. If you want to find a bus timetable would you seriously look on Wikipedia? --Spondoolicks 10:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment the article List of bus routes in Sydney is not a timetable - it's a list of routes, and examples of similar articles are listed above. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 10:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, if you wanted to find out which bus goes to downtown Sydney (or whatever) would you seriously look on Wikipedia? --Spondoolicks 11:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • No, but if you were interested in finding out how Sydney is served by bus transport it would be a good resource. It does serve a purpose. You must vote against this. (JROBBO 12:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC))
        • An overview of Sydney public transport is given in State Transit Authority of New South Wales and Buses in Sydney and an overview is all that an encyclopedia should be expected to give. Those articles gives links to the relevant websites for more microscopic detail if for some reason you need it for research purposes. --Spondoolicks 12:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
          • The State Transit Authority of New South Wales article does not concern buses per se. It concerns the overall body directing government buses. It doesn't concern non-Government owned buses. The Buses in Sydney article had the route list growing out of it because the article would be too long if it were in there. I think it's fair enough that it's kept. (JROBBO 15:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC))
• Keep (of course, as i started the article!). I originally put up one or two individual bus routes as individual pages (the 380, 400 etc)- they were put up for deletion and the consensus was that they should be deleted (fair enough in retrospect). The consensus also was that the information could be compiled on on a single page as a list or table. This was the genesis of these articles and as has been pointed out, there is plenty of precedent (List of bus routes in London, anyone?). If these pages go, then the London ones must as well. Also, the original article was split up into routes by the hundreds because the page was getting too big. Quaidy 12:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a bus schedule. Precedent is a bad example. The others should be put up for deletion as well unless there's some overriding reason to keep them. As in notable beyond being a big-city bus route. --DarkAudit 15:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Citing precedent without citing additional specific reasons for inclusion (like being in a template, for example) is insufficient. I can however see how there might be a single page, maybe a long one, which would discuss such matters. Such an single article might very easily qualify as significant enough. Alternately, if it were clearly established in the articles that the percentage of the population who use this system is so high as to require them as being significant to the daily life of the citizenry of the area, then maybe a small number of pages might qualify for includion. Badbilltucker 16:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Unencyclopaedic is not a principled reason to delete, nor is simply citing WP:NOT given that this is not a directory but a valid list. Precedents can apply here, reason being that many of those other articles survived AfDs and there is no conceptual difference why this should not. The information is kept up to date, is useful, there is obviously no copyright issue (it does not protect information, but form) and is obviously not a schedule or timetable. As stated, the general articles are not detailed enough and this information would detract from it if it were all on the same page. Public transport in a large city is very notable, particulkarly where the system has in excess of 170 million people travelling on public buses alone, let alone privates. As the only serious arguments invoked are 'this is unencylopedic' or 'WP:NOT' which are not arguments but a mere gut feeling with no reasons articulated, this article should stay unless a much better reason can be identified. There isn't one I can see. SM247^{My Talk} 20:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. What makes a "valid list"? I was under the impression that the purpose of lists on Wikipedia was to group articles in a way that offered insight into how they were related, and why they are important, for example List of Masts. The nominated articles do not link to other articles (as no inidividal Sydney bus routes have been deemed notable), and simply indiscriminately list all bus routes that currently exist, sometimes providing frequency and other information that to me qualifies them as either a directory or travel guide. I'm not denying that public transport is notable, but am concerned that these articles are addressing the subject in the wrong way (and incidentally, don't make any claims of notability, merely a claim of existence). The focus should be on insightful information such as the history of bus transport in the region, usage patterns, operators, published future proposals and the like, and should be articles with paragraphs and sections (much like Buses in Sydney), and not just a list of information culled from timetables. As such I would support the replacement of an article such as Sydney bus routes 100-199 with one such as Buses in north eastern Sydney, if the new articles purpose was to provide knowledge and not just to list dry facts and travel information. --Mako 22:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment What is the difference - all that constitutes is a name change. The purpose you have just identified could be achieved by expanding the present page. All articles are articles in progress. SM247^{My Talk} 23:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • The difference isn't just the name, it's the entire focus and content of the article. An article about what makes bus transport important in an area does not need to include detailed travel information and a list of all routes. Would there be any consensus on a proposal to rename the articles to something less bus route specific and to remove the directory / timetable type information from them? I'm not sure at this stage. --Mako 00:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
        • The point is that there is no "detailed travel information" as you claim. The list is a list of bus routes that came out of the Sydney Buses article (because it is far too big to be included in that article.) That is a valid article as it shows the areas where the buses run. It's not meant to be a detailed travel guide (you can use WikiTravel for that), but a list of information including the places where the State Government runs its transit network. (JROBBO 05:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC))
          • Some of the articles list: the suburb each route starts and ends in, suburbs it travels via, the depot its buses are based in, the peak and off peak frequency of the buses, the duration of the journey, and the number of sections. I think that could be described as detailed travel information. About the only details that have been left out are a list of the bus stops and actual departure times. If the intent is to describe the extent of the bus network, then all that is needed is a list of suburbs.--Mako 06:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
            • And it's still not a timetable. Timetables by their nature have times. Directories woul have contact details of the bus companies, on-time running information. This is a list of bus routes. It's a source of information that is useful about where buses run in Sydney. The WP:NOT doctrine has been misused completely and this is yet another bad nomination of this. (JROBBO 08:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC))
              • Comment I would submit that having sections, journey duration and depot information for each route is probably going a bit too far. However, there is nothing wrong with having a route number, where it goes, who runs it and on what days it runs. No reason to delete, just cut it down a bit. SM247^{My Talk} 20:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The issue of other bus routes elsewhere has been raised repeatedly and will likely continue to be. It might be useful to request general comment through RfC on how, if at all, pages on metropolitan transit systems work, what data should be included, etc, etc. I personally use the local St. Louis Metrolink regularly, and have no objections to seeing articles on such subjects. However, I would argue against the inclusion of detailed bus routes in the local St. Louis system in wikipedia as being information of only local interest. On the same basis, as stated above, I personally see no reason for the inclusion of such data on a different system. However, a page or two, perhaps with links to some other site and a brief description of the routes, would not necessarily be objectionable. Badbilltucker 21:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep --Alexxx1 ^{(talk/contribs)} 00:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete all Taking Arnzy's list, which I have numbered, I would rationalise that there are two categories of pages he has listed. In using the existence of them all to justify the continued presence of the proposed AfD, I believe he is misguided. Pages 1, 2, 3 (up to bus routes), 5, 8 (2nd part)and 10 should go. These consist of exhaustive but rather pointless and difficult to maintan lists which are not informative about the transport system which it purports to help to describe. [Edit: More relevant, up to date, and reliable information nan be obtained from the transport authority concerned, without anyone needing to waste any effort to redo something that's perfecty good from same. Here, it is clear to me that wiki's role is to inform, yet is not a bus directory. The pages subject to AfD here] exist to satisfy the completionists' desire to have everything catalogued, however trivial and irrelevant. On the other hand, pages 3 (1st part), 4, 6, 8 (1st part), [Edit: and each individual page under the grouping 11 is indeed uniquely] informative about the history, rationale, evolution of that route, as part of the system as a whole. Not in eithe category is Page 7, which describes the type of British double decker bus which has a signigficant part in british culture and dear to the hearts of many Britons. [Edit: Ditto page 9, which is informative as to the ypes of vehicle used (probably) not readily available elsewhere without painstaking research. ]I would say that page 10 deserves to be deleted forthwith as it is the worst offender, encapsulating all the bad points of the lists and none of the good points per my arguments. [Edit: I vote to keep only List of bus routes in Sydney. However,] Sydney bus routes from 100 through 999 (including night buses) should be deleted. But hey, it's whatever floats your boat. Ohconfucius 09:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It is quite clear that 'unmaintainable' is a non-argument, as you have shown no reason why it is unmaintainable. On the contrary, people hwo are interested do keep it up to date. It is not even difficult to maintain some of them particularly the TransLink page, which has been templated). 'Pointlessness' and 'triviality' are also non-arguments as they are purely subjective and differ from person to person (i.e. they are not capable of forming a consensus) - it is likely pointless or trivial to you as you are not a local. You may as well argue that any number of articles about things of no meaningful relevance to some people should be deleted. On this basis I could argue (for argument's sake, I actually adopt the opposite position) that the Hong Kong page you and I recently supported is pointless because all it does it tell us a great deal of numbers and prefixes without even telling us where the routes go - what use is that? It has also been pointed out many times that the information in this form is either not available on official sites or for whatever reason is actually less accurate on those sites in some cases where updates have been overlooked. I would also point out that you suggest somewhat incongruously keeping the London bus routes and not the Melbourne tram routes, odd because Melbourne's network is one of track (i.e. actually permanent) routes and forms the largest tram system in the English speaking world, and most of those London pages do nothing except list the stops on each route. They are constantly supported and remain here, why is this page any different? If anything it is more efficient as it wastes less space than a whole series of individual bus route articles. SM247^{My Talk} 00:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Additional comment Everybody appears to have overlooked List of bus routes in Hong Kong. What category does this fall into? SM247^{My Talk} 01:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
      • except info on which franchises have been granted to which operator, the List of bus routes in Hong Kong seems worthy of deletion to me per my explanation above. It is not the worst list I have seen, but as the good quality summary information is already available for HK at Hong Kong bus route numbering which, incidentally DOES tell you where the routes go. We could argue till the cows come home, because this debate is getting nowhere. This AfD has the "absolute completionists" dug in against those who want to delete anything at all because by doing so would spoil the completeness and accuracy of the information. As I already said, I think this particular list subject to deletion is just pure completionists' nonsense for completionisms' sake, but it's whatever turns you on. The fact that I am not local to Sydney is a red herring and is an unfair jibe. Ohconfucius 04:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment note that the content of List of bus routes in Sydney (other than a duplication of Sydney bus routes N00-N99 and a potentially useful map) is already at Buses in Sydney#Routes, an article that isn't nominated for deletion. --Mako 10:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• thanks for the clarification. All the more reason to delete the entire nominated batch Ohconfucius 10:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Do I have to keep repeating myself? It is not a directory. That is not its purpose. The fact that it changes does not make it worthy of deletion. WP is not a static encyclopaedia. That's why you can edit it - because things change. This is a list, of which there are many on WP and they are mostly justified. (JROBBO 14:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Proposal

Proposal - I'm fed up with this debate - it's plagued by deletionists who have contributed nothing to (or even know nothing about) Sydney Public Transport information, then propose everything for deletion under a misguided reading of WP:NOT - let's propose a compromise. Let's have a single page of all the bus routes List of bus routes in Sydney (probably moved to "List of Sydney bus routes" to be consistent with other Australian cities), without journey time, frequency and sections. Just where they go (from, to, via), the bus operator and the depot which serves that particular route (if relevant). If it doesn't run all day or is a peak hour express only route, that should be included. A link to the timetable on the bus site should also be included perhaps (optional). And any interesting information, like the former tram route buses. Perhaps this will satisfy people ... comments anyone? (JROBBO 14:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC))

Comment - Do you propose any criteria for inclusion in the list, other than either "currently exists" or "has ever existed"? If all of the hundreds of routes are listed, then we're exactly where we started and may as well leave the existing pages, which are at least a managable size. An example might demonstrate what I'm trying to get at here. Routes 132 and 133 both travel between Manly and Waringah Mall. Most of their route is identical, but they take a slightly different path through Balgowlah. Presumably both are based out of the depot near Waringah Mall. Is there anything particularly important about the difference between the two routes? If the difference between the two is trivial, then why do details of both need to be listed? --Mako 01:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion - What do you think of the table at Hong Kong bus route numbering#Brief list. Would something similar to that satisfy the various viewpoints here? Mako 01:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hong Kong's buses are organised very differently to Sydney's. I don't think we can draw comparisons between them. (JROBBO 02:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC))

• Comment What is the point of having an abstract box of numbers when there is already a more detailed version? That is less benefical than what we have now. That page can stay as it is if people want it that way, there is no reason to emasculate this one to emulate the other. I would also imagine this list should only be for current routes and not e.g. like Melbourne's tram routes list, which has historical details, as they are easier to manage there than past routes here would be. SM247^{My Talk} 01:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Why only current routes? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory. If a specific bus route is worth mentioning then it shouldn't matter whether it is current or not. --Mako 02:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment I think the whole point of having a summary box of numbers when there is already a more detailed version is that the detailed version is just clutter. Wiki should not, and does not want to be a repository of all information on the internet. Ohconfucius

• Strong keep --WikiCats 04:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, we have this information for other cities, and I think it is useful. Lankiveil 04:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC).
• Delete - I don't believe in qualifying it. At best, Merge to an article discussing allocation of route numbers rather than such time-sensitive information as bus routes. I hope one of these articles is covering the rerouting of bus routes in Mount Druitt due to DAILY rock attacks of buses, drivers and passengers? Surely that is more notable than a list of every bus route in Sydney. Garrie

If we keep them then I will be creating McDonalds, Emerton, New South WalesGarrie

Comment - The articles aren't time-sensitive. They don't contain timetable information, simply information about the type and frequency of service. This is different and much more easily maintained than detailed timetable information as the majority of routes operate to pretty well established service frequencies. --Alexxx1 ^{(talk/contribs)} 11:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Put this in a travel wiki but they don't belong here. Vegaswikian 05:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - wikitravel specifically states that it does not include articles on transport systems. Mako 05:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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.