Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OC Transpo Route 95

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OC Transpo Route 95, OC Transpo Route 96, OC Transpo Route 97

A bus route is not a suitable article subject for Wikipedia. WP:NOT a travel guide. Delete Proto::type 15:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  • NB - also included in this nomination:

**OC Transpo Route 96 **OC Transpo Route 97

Nomination WITHDRAWN. I won't remove the AFD notices or close this - as nominator, it's not my place to do so; please could an admin do so (on all 3 articles). Proto::type 09:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge/Redierect - Put any info not already covered here and redirect to the same. (That goes for all 3). -bobby 15:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. These are high-volume routes which carry an awful lot of passengers. They also use dedicated roadways (the Transitway) for part of their routes. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 16:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Calgary alone has 50 (you read that right) bus routes with higher volume than any Ontario bus route. I don't think they belong in Wikipedia, since Wikipedia is not a city bus schedule. So why should these? --Charlene 17:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep or Merge with OC Transpo article (but certainly not to deleted) They are the 3 buisiests routes in Ottawa and are rapid-bus routes that travels through all areas across cities via the Transitway (a unique transit corridor), serves major touristic areas in Canada's National Capital region (such as the Rideau Canal, Parliament Hill, Byward Market, etc.. No reason whatsoever to delete this. They are consider like most London bus routes in addition to be a mass commuter routes also as touristic routes. See also [[1]]. And also it belongs to the Ottawa WikiProject--JForget 21:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • ABSOLUTE Keep I see some people come and saying that I was the nominator to delete all routes, but remember I said EXCEPT 95,96 and 97. They are all Transitway routes which are necessary to the city and have an history. We cannot remove them. It's not about not being a travel guide, it's about three very important bus routes that link almost anywhere in Ottawa to Downtown. I repeat, absolute keep. --Deenoe 21:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd also like to add, since Transitway Routes 95, 96 and 96 are Ottawa's current mass transit, perhaps we should also remove Montreal's Subway, Toronto's etc... --Deenoe 21:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP--As per reasons above, except for the comments Charlene made about Calgary....Bacl-presby 22:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep of course. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The transit way is as much akin to a subway as a a standard bus route. - SimonP 23:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per others; the history and importance is notable (not to mention the sheer passenger volumes if one actually sees the 95, etc. in action). Dl2000 23:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Good point of the volume.. Just to see 95 pass every 3 minutes, and that, full-packed.. :p --Deenoe 02:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, agree with SimonP, Deenoe and TbT. These high volume routes are the major mass transit modality for Ottawa -- Samir धर्म 01:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep A primary public transit route in a major metropolitan city (a national capital, no less). --Marriedtofilm 07:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, major transit links in a capital city. Skeezix1000 12:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge to OC Transpo. Kirjtc2 12:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
If anything, it should be merged to OC Transpo Routes --Deenoe 21:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Quick comment - if this route is so important, perhaps you could bother to ensure that articles assert this in future. There are SEVEN lengthy paragraphs that describe the route the bus takes. These paragraphs are not assuredly encyclopaedic information. There is then a paragraph on the frequency of the bus route - this is travel information, and is best served with a link to the bus companies website, which already provides this information, and is guaranteed to be up to date. It is neither Wikipedia's responsibility nor its remit to provide that. I have had a go at revising the article so it makes sense. I have also withdrawn the nomination - ok, it's notable, but the article needs reworking. I confidently expect my changes to be revetrted ASAP. Proto::type 09:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentI've just posted in the Canadian Public Transportation Forum (Ottawa area) [2], a group of transit fans to see if anyone has sites that can contain history about the Transit Routes 95, 96 and 97 (including an older version of route 96) When the info is out, the changes will be drastict. I'm think essentially the utility of the route along with its history and recent and future changes as well as key destinations along its way will be enough along with an infobox just like it was done with route 99 before it was canned.--JForget 03:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP I don't know if there is still a chance that this will be deleted after the folk who proposed the deletion had withdrawn the proposal, but I do think that the network of roads and transit routes are an important background to many articles about the national capital area, just as the names of buildings are perhaps more important in some circles in ottawa than the actual addresses. (C.D.Howe Building vs 140 Queen Street or 240 Sparks - Same building)One of the advantages of an online encyclopedia is that one CAN have articles on non-mainstream topics without adding to theh weigh that one can ship..

cmacd 13:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep The 95 is an important route, for more than one reason. — Editor at Large(speak) 12:40, 6 November 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.