Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TransLink (South East Queensland) services

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 of the debate was No consensus. --Ezeu 08:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TransLink (South East Queensland) services

Quite simply put, this is not an encyclopaedia article. It's a lesser copy of timetable information already available from an official source, likely to go out of date quickly, and unlikely to be useful to anyone (you can't trust it being up-to-date, so you'd have to use the official website). Wikipedia was not intended to host mirrors of bus timetables ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information. Aplomado - UTC 06:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • delete, although an article ABOUT the station may do, this will become obsolete, and as Aplomado said, wikipedia is not... -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • delete WP:NOT. Dspserpico
  • Delete I'm a resident and I was actually surprised that the list was there. Also surprised I didn't spot the real TransLink article till now *shakes head* sendai 09:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Astrokey44 11:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Much work was put into creating this article. It provides valuable information such as the new bus numbering system Routes 700-799 (Gold Coast) about to be introduced on the Gold Coast. --WikiCats 11:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per WikiCats, furthermore it's a part of the Public transport project in Australia, if this page was to be deleted, the Melbourne and Perth pages would have to be placed up for Afd as well --Arnzy (Talk) 11:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - it is by no means a lesser version. There is no page on the Translink site that has all this information without wading through hundreds of PDF files. I've relied on it, and there are many of us who frequently update the page as new information is made available that otherwise wouldn't be on the Translink site. -Bunza 14:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't care how useful it is for locals, it's just not encyclopedic. --Eivindt@c 22:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Transwiki to Wikisource. While I am normally reluctant to vote delete on a Wikiproject associated article, I think that this is not appropriate for Wikipedia. From my experience of the Canberra system, bus services change at least a yearly basis so this would be very difficult to keep up to date. Perhaps should be Transwiki' to Wikisource. Capitalistroadster 03:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    How about the Australia wikia? --Astrokey44 12:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think this is valid information. Lankiveil 05:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC).
  • Keep. Needs work but something could be made of it. Grace Note 11:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for reasons below:
fuddlemark: The suggestion that this information is out of date or unreliable is erroneous and without foundation. I update this article regularly and in advance of all changes released by TransLink. 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 you suggest, but a reference source by which the appropriate TT can be found at a glance. Aplomado: None of this information is indiscriminate - it is logically ordered and does not meet anything in. WP:NOT, except potentially a travel guide and that is pushing it. This is an highly accurate list of public bus routes, not mere phone numbers or a FAQ. Sendai: The actual TransLink page is linked in the first sentence. Capitalroadster: See above, it is very easy to keep this up to date, and I am willing to do so. Wikipedia is not non-changing.
Further, similar lists exist for Melbourne and Perth, albeit with lesser detail. This is a functional and useful article which I and other refer to on a regular basis. Wikipedia encompasses a broader concept of what is encyclopaedic than that which is traditional, and thus incorporates articles all over the world about public transport services, such as an analogous page for every Australian urban rail system and one for every line and station. Most importantly - the previous incarnation of this article (renamed from (Brisbane) to the more accurate (South East Queensland)) was permitted to survive.SM247 11:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: A travel guide? Actually, I think "directory" would be a far more fitting description. Aplomado - UTC 22:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete current information is never encyclopaedic. A historical perspective is necessary. Otherwise its just a tourist guide. Justinc 12:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Route information is absolutely common in Wikipedia:
so an argument of WP:NOT is really not valid. --WikiCats 13:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • If Wikipedia is going to stoop to the level of listing bus route information, then God help us all. Aplomado - UTC 22:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - useful information kept up to date. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC) P.S. the nomination fails to make this clear that this is not timetable information, but simply a list of routes. I would not support keeping the current bus timetable on Wikipedia, but this is similar information to many, many other public transport system articles. IMO, an article like this (accurate, maintained, sourced real information useful to people) should not be deleted; at worst, it should be moved to another Wiki, but I'm not even convinced of that in this case. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment With regards to JustinC: the proposition that current information is not valid content for a dynamic online encyclopaedia such as Wikipedia is so misconceived that I do not know where to begin. This is also clearly not a tourist guide e.g. as would appear on WikiTravel or a brochure. SM247 07:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. But could do with some work. There's some information in that list, but Wikipedia is definitely not a timetable. Loom91 08:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Informative but needs work —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcw69 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment The information is clearly disclaimed with an admonition to check TransLink. This is not a timetable or schedule at all as there is no indication of running times, only of the services provided. SM247 20:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to the Australia Wikia, or Wikisource, or something. This is not what Wikipedia is for. Would be best on Wikitravel, but the licenses aren't compatible. Stifle (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Verfiable, precedent set by other route articles. -- Synapse 10:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikicats comment about other route articles and Morvens vote. The information is simply detailing the routes that are available. It has precedent and is easy to keep up to date as the routes are not as subject to major change as the timetable schemes. Ansell 10:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This would not be acceptable at Wikisource, please read the inclusion guidelines. Either it is not an exact copy of a published source or else it is likely a Copyright Violation. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - this is not a timetable - it's a list of routes and is perfectly acceptable - Hong Kong MTR, CityRail, Metlink, Transperth all have bus routes mentioned in articles - so why not this one. The article needs work, but that's not a reason to delete it. (JROBBO 12:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC))
  • Delete; goes far beyond the bounds of an encyclopaedia article. Runcorn 15:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This page and its predecessor were singled out. Why not also list for deletion the equivalent pages in other cities? Melbourne has an actual page for each of its tram routes for goodness' sake. I think there is ample and substantiated precedent for keeping this page which has apparently been disregarded by some, or if not disregarded then in being acknowledged has resulted in an uneven application of policy. SM247 07:34, 8 May 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.