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. Consenus (based on policy) is to delete the panda ₯’ 22:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Services of Wilts & Dorset (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Not a notable or encyclopedic topic. Mostly only verifiable from primary sources. Fails WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL Charles (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - Non notable bus crap. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why this is being nominated for deletion now after existing for four years, the page is in accordance with WP:NTRAN. Also I find your message strange "Non notable bus crap." considering your profile says "My Interests on Wikipedia are: Buses..." Mainline421 (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We go by notability, Not how many years they've been running, There's a difference liking buses and liking bus companies and their routes..... -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point about how many years the page has existed was that if it did violate the criteria for an article on Wikipedia (which it doesn't) then it would have been deleted already. And it has existed even longer than that on the Wilts & Dorset page it was moved to it's own page so someone clearly though it had encyclopedic value. (which it does) Mainline421 (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it had "encyclopedic value" & was "notable" we wouldn't be here now would we?....-→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can and does change over time. What happened in the past makes no difference.--Charles (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know about the rules of wikipedia but i have always found this a useful and interesting page especially considering there is no complete route list anywhere else now. Also maby a bit ot but the page was up to date yesterday why has it gone back to how it was before? Sorry for bad grammar im using a phone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.173.142 (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Transwiki to Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. This is an omnishambles of a nomination but 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 unsourced, it's 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. Just remember all the rules, and be prepared to kill all the bus route articles :) Timothyhouse1 (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's absolutely no reason why this article should be deleted WP:NTRAN states "Transportation services, and associated items, are notable if they have been discussed in multiple, independent sources" and "Intercity bus services providing regularly scheduled, fixed-route services on multiple routes between two or more major cities or regions are likely to be notable" WP:WikiProject_Buses/Bus_route_list_guide states "Generally, if the bus routes in an area descended from streetcars, a list is appropriate, and if the system did not exist at all until the 1990s, it is probably not. In between those extremes, use your own judgment." The subjects are discussed frequently in (not reputable)independent sources and press. Mainline421 (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Buses/Bus route list guide is tagged "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear." It is worthless. It is unlikely that this particular set of routes will be widely discussed in reliable secondary sources outside of the immediate area, as is needed to meet the general notability guideline.

• Keep We have many, many, articles of this type, and they are standard features. WP incorporates many of the features of an atlas. even to local detail. What we do not do is make articles on the individual routes. DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of them have actually been deleted now by strong consensus. We have Wikivoyage to cover travel related topics and there is no reason to keep this type of unstable and constantly changing material which is only of local or specialist interest and as a guide.--Charles (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete. My gut feeling (although I can't point to any policy to back this up) is that individual bus lines are not notable, both because of their ubiquitousness and because the routes are so ephemeral. I looked up a few local bus services that I'm familiar with (Bee-Line Bus System, Rockland Coaches, New Jersey Transit Bus Operations, MTA Regional Bus Operations). The trend seems to be that routes are mentioned in the main article, but not a distinct article about them. On the other hand, trains do seem to get articles about individual routes (Vermonter, and all of Template:Amtrak_routes). Are train routes inherently more notable than bus routes, or do the train geeks just have a stronger lobby than the bus geeks? -- RoySmith (talk) 12:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of each perhaps. Rail tracks are fixed in steel rather than just following general roads and are not subject to frequent changes like bus routes. There are also a lot more local bus routes of no interest outside their immediate area.--Charles (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheMesquito^buzz 18:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as almost none of the content is based on secondary sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• strong delete WP:NOT a bus directory. COmpany may be notable, and a high level overview of areas covered may be appropriate in the parent article, but listing every route is insane. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems like a fine article to me, meets all necessary guidelines by my book. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gimme a message) @ 21:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• We tend to follow Wikipedia policy rather than your book.--Charles (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That just means "my opinion". In my opinion the policies are all followed and don't require deletion of this article. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (shout) @ 22:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep , based on sources provide in article this is passes GNG. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • .... But fails everything else, It actually fails GNG too!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete yes, this fails on everything. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2014 (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.