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. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wilmslow Road bus corridor frequency[edit]

Random unencyclopaedic trivia, does not deserve an article of its own, nor more than a passing mention in the parent article. Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wilmslow Road bus corridor. Absolutely meaningless outside of the context. Wikipedia is not a bus schedule. Drawn Some (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What notability does Wilmslow Road bus corridor? That it is claimed to be Europe's busiest bus corridor. What evidence is there of this? That's why I created this article, to highlight its claims without cluttering the original article. Happy to merge into the main article if that's what consensus says. Divy (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think merging may be the best option, but still, it is too detailed - we are not a bus timetable. Divy, there's evidence in the form of published books that describe the route as the busiest in Europe (by the UK government, for example). We don't prove our claims on Wikipedia - that's original research. We prove through the use of sources. Majorly talk 15:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it is too detailed. It's a summary table of frequency for the different services, on an article for a bus route claimed to be the busiest corridor in Europe. Not original research – just a case of arranging the information in a way to back-up what the sources claim. Something like Southern Vectis route 1 reads far more like a bus timetable: it even states when the first and last bus are! Divy (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sort of thing is fine for an article on the individual route. The corridor article is intended to describe all the routes, so it shouldn't go into a lot of detail - sub articles could be made for that sort of thing. I was going to create one on the 42 route but couldn't find enough sources. Majorly talk 15:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily agree with the creation of individual articles for particular bus routes, so I can't agree that this first/last bus info is appropriate material for an article about an individual route. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite: because Wilmslow Road really *does* have notability (rather than individual routes on it) that I've been bold and created this table to highlight its claim. Divy (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:IINFO, not merge - no way is this sort of detail encyclopedic, apart from the fact that it would be out of date within a year. The main article already contains the (unsourced) claim about being the busiest, and an indication of frequencies. JohnCD (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced? Incorrect: it's sourced to House of Commons Transport Committee, Great Britain (2006). Bus Services Across the UK. The Stationery Office. ISBN 0-215-03092-3., if you'd look at the article. There are more books and publications that back up the claim. This article appeared on the Main Page with that claim as the hook. It's not a light thing to publish an "unsourced" claim on the main page - which never did happen, because the claim is clear sourced. Majorly talk 15:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I did look at the main article, which says "reputed to be". I missed that there was a source, though it's not clear if the source says that it is the busiest or just that it is reputed to be. JohnCD (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's partly this question of being reputed that led me to create the table in the first place! At least with this table in the article, we have a basis for comparison. Divy (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't necessarily be out of date within a year, as service frequencies need not change that often - though I see your concern. I don't share it though: we don't disclude information on the basis that it may change in the future though, we simply keep on top of it. Besides, there is the disclaimer of an "as of" date just in front of the table. Divy (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where I live, the bus timetables change about twice a year; yes, you have an "as of" date, which is good, but my main point is WP:IINFO. JohnCD (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to my reading of WP:IINFO, you believe this fails because it is a long list of statistics. Now that this is merged back into the main article, it seems that there is a proper context to it, plus it is in a table to enhance readability. I've suggested a couple of ways on the main article talk page in which to simplify the table. Divy (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not so much that it's a long list of statistics, it's the difficult, and subjective, question of what is encyclopedic. Nobody would disagree that there is a level of detail which is not - e.g. the full bus timetable with times for every stop, or the full London telephone directory. The question is, where does one draw the line? I think my test is to try imagining who might actually need to look this up in WP, or find it interesting if he stumbled across it. But I won't pursue it back to the main article, I'll leave it to editors there to decide how much to include. JohnCD (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment somebody please be bold and merge with parent article and continue the discussion on that talk page. Much of the present discussion is beyond the scope of AfD. Drawn Some (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been bold. Divy (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please expand how you feel a deletion discussion is beyond the scope of an AfD? It is hardly suitable for a merge, the information isn't suitable for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't put words in my mouth. I specifically said "much of the present discussion" meaning most but not all. I don't believe anyone is going to successfully argue that this should be a standalone article nor will there be a successful argument that none of the information should be included in the parent article. If the parent article is about the busiest bus corridor in Europe then some discussion of the actual bus traffic is necessary. A grid listing each bus may or may not be inappropriate within the article but at least some of the information (bus companies for examples) would be appropriate. That is why I suggest going ahead and merging and then settling the arguments there: it won't stand alone as an article and at least some will remain in the primary article. The real issue here should is about what should be included in the parent article. Can't we all just get along and not fight about some bus schedules? Drawn Some (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The operators are already listed in the parent article. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Divy, since you created this, do you honestly believe that this qualifies as a standalone article? Or is this really a dispute about what goes in the main article? Spinning this out is not a solution to the problem of what goes in the parent article. So I say again, merge the article and take the discussion there and hash it out. Wrong battleground here for the fight. No way is this going to survive standalone. Drawn Some (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion still needs to run as a deletion discussion for the original article which still remains. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, it was probably a mistake to create a standalone article. Having merged the info into the main article now, I'll argue my case for its inclusion there. Could an admin delete, please? Sorry for spoiling anyone's afternoon :) Divy (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per not a bus service directory. In seriousness, bus schedules change all the time and we should be actively discouraging anyone from seeking to turn to an encyclopedia to figure out when the buses run. We won't have the most up to date info on it, so people will be misled. And in terms of our mission, well, encyclopedia's aren't directorys.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Bali ultimate's comments that because schedules change, keeping an article like this creates a problem of maintaining things. And I see no way people would possibly type this search term into the box, so I would not want to create a redirect. Personally, I find public transit articles very interesting and I generally favor creating and expanding them, even when esoteric--and even some discussion of frequency is relevant on public transit pages. However, tables of detailed information are not. Any information needs to be presented as prose and integrated into a narrative on the relevant pages. Cazort (talk) 22:30, 25 May 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.