List of bus routes in Bangkok: Just a bunch of routes with no reason why they are notable.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 13:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation , Lists , Asia ,  and Thailand .  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 13:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep NOTDIR doesn't mean NOTLIST.  Meets WP:NLIST since multiple of it's sources cover the group as a whole.  Otherwise transwiki to Wikivoyage as an ATD.  small jars t c 17:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Another argument in favour keeping: the lede can demonstrate the notability of bus routes in Bangkok on it's own.  You could blank the entirity of the list content and deletion would still not be justified.  small jars t c 11:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Per nom.  WP:NOTDIR applies as there is only one bus route that has its own article.  Most of the sourcing is primary sources (timetables) and there is a good amount of sourcing from what appears to be self-published sources (I can't view these references).  Wikivoyage is the place for lists of this kind.  Ajf773 ( talk ) 22:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] About the lack of independent articles, consider the advice of WP:BUSOUTCOMES : Articles about individual bus routes are rarely notable; recommendations to merge into a suitable list article are common.  Having lists of bus routes without their own articles appears to be standard practice.  small jars t c 12:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] BUSOUTCOMES is not policy.  WP:NOT is policy, which contains reasons defined in this discussion.  Ajf773 ( talk ) 01:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:OUTCOMES is a well maintained explanatory essay that indicates that your interpretation of NOTDIR is not standard.  You seem to think that lists exist for solely navigational purposes.  small jars t c 11:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I do not believe that they exist for "solely navigational purposes."  Actually, my problem is also not notability.  This falls under WP:NOTTRAVEL and would fit much better on Wikivoyage .  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 13:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Having read the policy, I see no relevance of NOTTRAVEL to this case beyond the name of the shortcut.  It describes the context of an article about a place, not a list, and what it prohibits is subjective recommendations, not just anything which might be useful for getting around.  small jars t c 15:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe a better page to use here is WP:ITSUSEFUL .  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 15:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "It is useful" is an argument to avoid, not in itself a grounds for deletion.  If you treat it as such, it would seem you have reached the bizarre point of arguing against keeping an article on the grounds that the article might be used by someone.  small jars t c 16:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not arguing that it should be deleted per WP:ITSUSEFUL .  I am arguing that it does not meet WP:LISTN , and reads a lot like a travel guide, therefore it also falls under WP:NOT and should probably be transwikied to Wikivoyage .  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 19:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think we're going round in circles: You don't have a problem with notability, but you do with NOT: Actually, my problem is also not notability.  This falls under WP:NOTTRAVEL You don't have a problem with NOT anymore, so you cite ITISUSEFUL: Maybe a better page to use here is WP:ITSUSEFUL You don't actually have a problem with ITISUSEFUL, but you do have one with notability: I am not arguing that it should be deleted per WP:ITSUSEFUL.  I am arguing that it does not meet WP:LISTN small jars t c 20:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My problem lies with WP:LISTN and WP:NOT .  If you can prove this passes both , I will be impressed.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 21:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have already explained that NOTTRAVEL is irrelevant, and that the article has enough RS covering the set to pass LISTN, and each time you seemed to agree with me until you didn't.  As for NOTDIR, it's essentially another way of describing a non-notable list, so it's the same argument as LISTN.  small jars t c 23:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Looking at the sources, most are primary, and two are from the local city newspaper, which is really only worth one point for WP:GNG .  And judging by the fact that bangkokbusclub.com has "wiki" in the url , it is almost certainly unreliable.  This leaves 2 notability points, which is not enough.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 23:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:OUTCOMES, offers really only inferential information about the outcome for AfD's.  It's not policy and it has no value in discussions.  Ajf773 ( talk ) 09:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It has value in that I have used it to infer that your argument relies on a distorted interpretation of NOTDIR, and that keeping lists is a standard alternative to having tons of semi-notable bus route stubs.  If non-policy pages had no value in AfD discussions, we wouldn't keep them as subpages of WP:AFD .  small jars t c 10:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] On top of sources like the BMTA website that list individual buses, it's easy to discover that there is enough news coverage of Bangkok bus routes to pass GNG [34] [35] [36] and even some academic coverage [37] .  small jars t c 08:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you think this reads like one, I have to ask: have you ever read a travel guide?  small jars t c 20:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It's actively maintained and properly referenced.  No other English sources out there are as accurate as this.  Bus routes in Bangkok should be a notable topic on its own.  -- Lerdsuwa ( talk ) 01:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Bangkokbusclub.com has all the hallmarks of being a fansite.  I couldn't even view those webpages either way.  Lots of the other sources are just timetable links.  Ajf773 ( talk ) 10:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's bad practice to decide that a source has all the hallmarks of being a fansite when you can't even view it.  I suspect the reason it's unavailable is that we're in the wrong region, but wayback machine works none the less.  It looks like it might be at least partly wiki based, but it's not the most important source in terms of NLIST anyway.  What matters is the notability of the set, not the items.  small jars t c 11:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability is determined by the presence of reliable, independent, secondary sources.  Wiki's are self-published and therefore none of those.  And it is a big verifibility issue if a source is cited but cannot be reached any longer.  Ajf773 ( talk ) 01:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If we actually acted in accordance with the idea that sources some people can't access aren't usable, we'd have to ruin countless articles relying on paywalled academic sources.  This source is not key to demonstrating to notability of the set anyway.  small jars t c 11:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The "no other English sources" part of your argument is WP:ITSUSEFUL , and you are more than welcome to write one on Wikivoyage .  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 13:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That wasn't the core of their argument but you're still using it to attack them.  God forbid we mention that an article is actually worth reading when considering whether or not to delete it!  In fact, it seems that happening be useful for a practical purpose like travel is treated as a reason for deletion in its own right.  I imagine that an list of ant species in Bangkok would have an easier time, since such a purely academic concern would remove suspicions that the article might be read out of anything other than an armchair.  small jars t c 15:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would probably nominate a "list of ant species in Bangkok" as that fails WP:LISTN , and I do not have any bias against buses.  Properly referenced, actively maintained, those are good for an article, but do not make it meet WP:LISTN .  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 15:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "Properly referenced" is the only factor in making a list LISTN! small jars t c 16:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You can have all of the entries in a list be verified, but that does not make the overall list meet WP:LISTN .  For an example, see here .  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 18:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As I have said, it is the references to sources covering the group as a whole that matter.  The entries do not contribute to notability.  small jars t c 20:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 07:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Contributors to this and other recent discussions about bus route lists should be aware of previous mass AfD for bus routes that was closed as keep. small jars t c 12:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They should also be aware that several bus route lists, including some of the ones in that mass AfD, have been deleted. The main reason the mass AfD failed is because they tried to delete too many at once. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 15:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Every article needs to be assessed on its own merits. Most recently the List of bus routes in Lahore was deleted in another discussion . Ajf773 ( talk ) 01:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Looking at Talk:List of bus routes in Bangkok , this appears to be a valid split from Bangkok Mass Transit Authority . Garuda3 ( talk ) 22:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I do not believe that this should be covered here or at Bangkok Mass Transit Authority . It is unencyclopedic information better suited for Wikivoyage . QuicoleJR ( talk ) 23:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTDIR . Not every related bus routes in any city (Examples: Singapore , New York City , and Los Angeles ), can have a separate article for bus routes. CastJared ( talk ) 15:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm confused by your argument. Both List of bus routes in New York City and List of bus routes in Singapore exist. Garuda3 ( talk ) 10:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wait, why WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ? Why not them? CastJared ( talk ) 12:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wait, why WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST ? Why not them? small jars t c 15:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Valid spinoff of the previous levels and parent of the next level, that currently only has bus 8. For the others the hierarchy stops here and folks correctly pointed out: most individual lines are not notable. List is referenced and upkept. It provides important context and detail. The fact that Singapore is both a large city and a country does not hurt either. gidonb ( talk ) 12:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The same applies to List of bus routes in London . However, see the same reason for London Buses route 969 . CastJared ( talk ) 14:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] CastJared , London is of course not a country yet is an even larger city. Both lists are very valid entries! gidonb ( talk ) 14:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even New York City as well. CastJared ( talk ) 14:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sure. All of the above! gidonb ( talk ) 15:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Guys, this is for Bangkok, not Singapore. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 16:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My bad. Bangkok is even larger! gidonb ( talk ) 16:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NOTDIR and due to weak sourcing. The majority of the citations are to the website of Bangkok Mass Transit Authority which operates or contracts other companies to operate many of these buses (not an independent source). The next most common source is Bangkokbusclub.com, which appears to be a bus fansite (according to the archived versions I have seen, as access appears to be currently forbidden) and has not been shown to be a reliable source. Yes, Wikipedia does have lists of bus routes in some other cities, but lists of bus routes in yet other cities have been deleted at AfD as well, because some of those lists have not been worth keeping. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : fails both NLIST, there are not IS RS discussing this as a group; and fails CLN/AOAL, there is not navigation purpose served by the article.  // Timothy :: talk 11:16, 4 May 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete