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

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 delete. Content can be userfied by request. Shii (tock) 06:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Cambridgeshire

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

Wikipedia isn't travel guide - this belongs on Wikivoyage, not here Davey2010 Talk 03:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable and difficult if not impossible to reliably maintain. The Guided Busway already has it's own article as does Transport in Cambridge and Transport in East Anglia. A similar article on Transport in Cambridgeshire would be entirely appropriate as a prose article if someone cared to write it. As this one stands it at least has some secondary sourcing in the prose sections so they might make a good starting point for that article - or one on Buses in Cambridgeshire but I am convinced that the majority of lists of bus route articles have no place sustainably on Wikipedia. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 00:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 20:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Beagel (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in Cambridgeshire, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 23:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. The policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree with transwiki. Making our problem Wikivoyage's problem is not a good idea. Bus routes are continuously updated and changed, but not continuously maintained on wiki's. They've been having a large problem with this. Furthermore, all the relevant information is all under WP:NOTTRAVEL. Mkdw ^talk 03:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikivoyage then Delete -- all these bus routes articles should be killed off wholesale in WP, as non-encyclopedic: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is a particular difficulty with them, in that they need maintenance, because bus operators start new services or discontinue them. Once the original editor (creator) loses interest, there is no guarantee that they will be adequately maintained. In contrast the bus operators and Passenger Transport Executives (and similar authorities, such as county councils) can be expected to keep their own websites up to date. In contrast, a railway (or tram system) has fixed infrastructure that cannot easily be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoyage specifically states that "transports systems generally do not have articles unless there is a compelling reason for an exception". Most bus route Wikivoyage articles are deleted through VfD (their AfD) process and a mere link to the official bus routes website is listed on whatever city or region's main article. This is what I'm talking about making our problem, their problem, when it should simply be deleted. Recommended something be moved over there with out being too familiar with their guidelines. Mkdw ^talk 23:20, 30 March 2013 (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.