Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Ipswich

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 no consensus. There is a significant disagreement here over whether this article by it's very nature fails WP:NOT#Directory. There is a consensus that the list is currently in need of improvement if it is to be kept. Given the two precedents cited which show that this type of list has not previously been automatically considered a violation of policy and the divergence of views here, no consensus can be the only outcome. I will add a cleanup tag to the article and suggest that a centralised discussion be held to discuss whether/which lists of bus routes are permittable. Davewild (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Ipswich

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The very nature of this page means it can't be encyclopaedic, it's a list of bus routes. Dancarney (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While in this case it probably isn't notable, I disagree with "The very nature of this page means it can't be encyclopaedic, it's a list of bus routes." These can be notable. See List of bus routes in London. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 15:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article needs referencing, but clearly meets Wikipedia's broad content definition as an encyclopedia, almanac, and gazeteer. While this article may not be appropriate for a traditional encyclopedia, it is cleary acceptable information for an almanac. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 15:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My nomination for deletion was based on Wikipedia not being a directory, or a travel guide for that matter, which is what it reads like to me. Dancarney (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is purely a directory, contrary to WP:NOT. Edison (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We consistently have these articles for every city with enough of them to bother about & people to do them. They are not transient, but semi-permanent geographical features the same as other parts of the transportation network. They should be seen not as directory, but as combination articles, because every individual one of them is almost notable--though this is the desirable way of handling them, not generally individual articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Precedent allows articles covering this wide an area to be kept. (It also provided something to merge to for people who start articles on individual bus routes.) An expanded article on bus services in Ipswich would be better, but this is a start. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I realize we have a lot of directory-esque pages, but I seem to remember "bus schedules" at one point being the quintessential example of what wikipedia is not (there are a lot of reasons for this... accuracy, lack of visibility, not enough traffic to warrant updating so it's accurate, etc.). Shadowjams (talk) 08:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Bus schedule" is an American word. Does it mean bus timetable, which obviously wouldn't be notable, and obviously would be an example of what Wikipedia is not, or would it be a bus route, which is different. A list of bus routes is immensely different. Or does it mean everything? Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 17:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Bus schedule" is not an "American word", but in any case, there's no need to analyze my expressions as though they were law. I simply mean that this, whatever it is (its a schedule of busses--actually, it has less information than an actual bus schedule would have), is not notable and falls under the not a directory criteria. Shadowjams (talk) 11:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if it's not American, what is it? I am a bus enthusiast and I don't know what its equivalent is. The article isn't a schedule of buses, it's a list of routes. I take schedule to mean a timetable (i.e the thing with the actual times of when the bus will come). A bus route is completely different

I'm not analysing your expression as if they were by law, I am just trying to grasp a concept of what people are referring to by "schedule". What I take to mean schedule isn't what a list of routes is. This article, as it currently stands, probably isn't notable. I am not arguing against your delete vote, just merely trying to understand what is going on. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 16:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Abstain: This is a prime example of what Wikipedia is NOT: a schedule or timetable or bus stop listing. See WP:NOT. --Triadian (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, this isn't a schedule, a timetable or a bus stop listing. So the explanation of your delete vote doesn't explain much. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 22:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ok, I as it stands now, this is simply a "bus stop listing" as you put it. This goes against WP:NOT policy so if the list is going to remain as is, then it needs to be deleted on that basis. Lists such of these have been nominated for deletion before and there is no one guideline for handling such articles. It's a can of worms. See this and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Egged bus lines and more. The only bus route lists that have survived deletion have been ones that can prove a higher degree of notability (such as serve a city with a population over a million) and have paragraphs of additional information like List of bus routes in Manhattan. These lists border on being "directories", so since we're on the border, a line needs to be drawn somewhere. By comparison, Ipswitch, although a nice city I'm sure, only has a population of 126,000. I don't see the notability for this list being high enough to hop across this line. It's a hard decision, but if this thing is going to stay, it needs to be reworked to be as detailed as the other lists in its class. I'll change my vote to abstain. --Triadian (talk) 06:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, as it stands now, this article isn't notable. As you say, Ipswich isn't a very big town, and glancing at the article shows that the list is pretty basic. But, as I've said above, some of the wording used doesn't match what is used in English. To me, as an English bus enthusiast, this is a list of routes (per the title). It might be a "bus stop listing" to you, but it isn't to me! I'd take "bus stop listing" to either be information posted at an actual bus stop, or a guide of what bus stop each routes stops at (for example in a city centre). Now you've explained yourself, I fully understand what you mean. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 17:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I disagree with the precedent that bus routes are notable. Wikipedia isn't a directory for local information. Secret ^account 21:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article consists of directory-like information and lacks encyclopedic content and sources, but it is likely that it can be improved. At least two of the companies that operate buses in Ipswich are notable, and the contents of the lists should be verifiable, so it appears to either be a suitable topic for a list or overview, or suitable for merging or converting into a list or article on a less narrowly defined subject. snigbrook (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2009 (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.