- 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 delete, though from reading the arguments of many of the "delete" voters (JamesTeterenko for instance), this is much to do with the quality of the article and not not the notability of the subject. Right now, it consists only of a fleet list and a list of routes and little real encyclopedic information (history, ownership, community impact), hence no prejudice against a rewritten article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
un-encyclopedic list of busses and routes Icarus 05:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No vote yet, I want to see some thoughs; mine is "A bus schedule?" T K E 05:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A list of buses in a corporate fleet and a list of their routes, with no references or claims to notability for either - how can this be useful for a researcher? (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Where to catch a bus in Brandon, perhaps. Sarcasm per my disclaimer T K E 06:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete New York City Subway rolling stock has a comparable level of detail, but then, that's a somewhat more notable system with custom equipment. --John Nagle 20:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Brandon, Manitoba — although I note that articles on even significantly larger cities in Canada, such as Victoria, British Columbia do not contain sections on public transit. So perhaps delete. Fishhead64 21:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above users -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 22:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; tag for improvement as necessary. I've seen useful and interesting articles on lots of comparable public transit systems in midsized cities. Samaritan 20:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no question that municipal transit articles define their own special universe of cruft, but this isn't actually any worse than a lot of other city bus system articles that have been kept in the past. It's certainly expandable, if someone cares that much, and unless you're prepared to pitch for a general WP consensus against local transit systems I don't see how this one can be considered less notable than the many others whose articles already exist. Keep, if only because it ain't harming anything. Bearcat 07:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Ardenn 00:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because none of the content is encyclopedic. Would consider changing my vote if someone were to expand the article. -- JamesTeterenko 03:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Wstaffor 22:31, 18 April 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.