Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of public transport routes numbered 19

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. This has moved away from a deletion discussion, feel free to continue elsewhere. J04n(talk page) 15:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of public transport routes numbered 19

List of public transport routes numbered 19 (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)

This list is not notable. There is no third-party coverage of route nineteen as a group worthy of study or discussion. The selection criterion is as arbitrary as the magnetic orientation or longitude of the route. Rhadow (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Needing to disambiguate "Route 19" is a huge stretch, and the shared number is not enough of a reason otherwise to link these. Mangoe (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment look like we have a few of these:
all the way to:

Mattg82 (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Peter James (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Peter James (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Now that the wikilawyering has started, I should point out that List of highways numbered 19 and List of public transport routes numbered 19 both fail to meet the standard for disambiguation articles WP:DABNAME. The page Route 19 does not make it easier for the reader. Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be. In every case the reader will have to click through twice to reach the article of interest. Rhadow (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)** @Rhadow: So we should fix that rather than making it even harder for the reader by deleting this page entirely. If this page is kept, I'd support starting a new RfC to reopen the discussion on how to handle these articles. Ideally, I'd support merging this with List of highways numbered 19 to create a disambiguation page Route 19 (disambiguation). But simply put, that's not a deletion issue. Smartyllama (talk) 13:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep If the routes are notable, this is an appropriate disambiguation page. If they're not, delete them first, then worry about the list. Simply put, disambiguation pages like this are not required to meet WP:GNG, and any assertion to the contrary is patently absurd. And WP:DABNAME is a content issue, not a deletion issue. Start an RfC or something. Smartyllama (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This isn’t a disambiguation page, it’s a set index article, a list article about a set of items of a specific type that also share the same (or similar) name. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well it should be a disambiguation page. I'd support merging this with List of highways numbered 19 to create Route 19 (disambiguation). But that's not a deletion issue, that's a content issue. Someone searching for "Route 19" should be able to find whatever Route 19 they're looking for as easily as possible. The current situation isn't ideal, but it's a whole lot better than deleting these articles entirely. Smartyllama (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep first get the listed pages delete. — MapSGV (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- a list contains a set of articles with a common logical characteristic worthy of discussion. No third party has chosen to write about Bus routes numbered seventeen. It makes as much sense as creating a List of Presidents of the United States named James. Rhadow (talk) 11:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhadow: was this list created before the creation of these listed pages? MapSGV (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting question, MapSGV. We are not encouraged to create empty lists, such as List of Presidents of the United States named Leroy. This article, List of public transport routes numbered 19 had two elements when it was created in 2009. The answer to your question is No. Rhadow (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vote changed to delete per this explanation. Yes a lot of indexes can be created like the one you named and we have to avoid it. — MapSGV (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MapSGV: The problem is it's not a list, it's a disambiguation page that's poorly titled due to a prior RfC. But that's not a deletion issue. The issue is that Route 19 could refer to either a highway numbered 19 or a transit route numbered 19, and the RfC determined we should have separate disambiguation pages for the two. I would prefer to merge this with List of highways numbered 19, for instance, to create Route 19 (disambiguation), but this is not the appropriate place to discuss that given the prior RfC. To further the Presidential analogy, President Harrison exists as a disambiguation page even though there are few if any sources which discuss Benjamin and William Henry together. But it's not called List of Presidents Named Harrison. Again, though, that's not a deletion issue, that's a content issue. Such an article, if it existed, would almost certainly be moved to the appropriate place rather than deleted. If this is kept, I'd be open to starting a new RfC on what exactly to call these disambiguation pages, since the title is just inviting confusion like this. Someone searching for Route 19 should be able to easily get to whichever Route 19 they're looking for. That's why we have disambiguation pages. And while I agree the current situation is poorly designed, that's still not a deletion issue. I'll also note that we have disambiguation pages for Red Line, Orange Line, etc. and I don't see why it should be different for routes that are numbered rather than colored. But it should just be one disambiguation page for everything with that name, not several lists. Smartyllama (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Smartyllama, I appreciate your assertion that this article is a disambiguation page, but (a) it is most clearly entitled List of .. and (b) it is not in the Category:Disambiguation pages. Editors are warned against creating disambiguation pages based on partial name matches WP:PTM, which is the case here. That's why there is no article List of Presidents Named Harrison. Rhadow (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)\[reply]
@Rhadow: I agree the page shouldn't exist as a list. At the same time, there's a clear need for a disambiguation page. If we did have a page called List of Presidents Named Harrison, it would be moved to where it belongs (and currently is) not deleted outright thereby preventing readers from finding information on whichever President Harrison they're looking for. If these pages aren't disambiguation pages, they should be. And that's not a deletion issue, that's a content issue which should be discussed with a new RfC. Someone searching for Route 19 should be able to find whichever Route 19 they're looking for. This isn't the way to do it, but deleting these articles certainly isn't either. Smartyllama (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that proper disambiguation pages do exist, as discussed below. Smartyllama (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete - A list spun on an arbitrary property matching an arbitrary value, is ridiculous. DexterPointy (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whether this page is better suited in list or disambiguation form is not a deletion issue and should not be treated as such. Only one delete !vote explicitly addressed the need to disambiguate these pages, and I hope the closer will take this into account. Smartyllama (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Public Transport Routes is a so generic scope, that disambiguation by their arbitrary number alone, makes little more sense than disambiguation of Nobel Prize Winners by number of letters in their first names'. - If there is a need for disambiguation of Public Transport Routes, then it would be by location (e.g. country, region, city), and then optionally subdivided into type (e.g. bus, tram, train, metro), and only then may route number become relevant. DexterPointy (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how disambiguation pages work. "Route 1" is a plausible search term and the reader should be able to find the information they're looking for as easily as possible. Smartyllama (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The question should be whether the delete !voters would object to a disambiguation page called, for instance, Route 1 (disambiguation) that included these routes among other content with that name (such as highways). If not, this is a content issue, not a deletion one. Smartyllama (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DexterPointy: Your concern is valid for list articles, but disambiguation articles generally are used for things with the same name but little else in common. You may want to reconsider your !vote in light of the information below re existing disambiguation pages. Smartyllama (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just realised that I missed a feature/fact of WikipediaSearch, namely that a search does not always produce a search results list, but rather sometimes produce a disambiguation page. (I've stricken my "Delete", and will return w. comments focused on mergings & redirections) DexterPointy (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have just discovered that Line 19 and the others are actual disambiguation pages that exist and are properly marked as such. In light of this, I'm striking my !vote above and adjusting it below. Smartyllama (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Line 1, Line 2, etc. This content belongs at a disambiguation page, not a list, but I can't see how a redirect would hurt and the standards are lower for those. Besides, there's no need to duplicate content. Smartyllama (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you think a reader will type in List of public transport routes numbered 19 instead of Route 19, then a redirect is entirely appropriate. I don't see the point of leaving it in, though. Rhadow (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are cheap. A redirect wouldn't really do any harm, and could be beneficial. At the very least, it stops someone else from recreating this article later, and us having to go through this whole thing all over again. Smartyllama (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let's do it, then. And for the other nineteen. Rhadow (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have to let this AfD run its course since there are still delete !votes (and one keep !vote), so let's wait until it's closed officially. Smartyllama (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
( Tentative Ping : @Smartyllama: , @Rhadow: )
To clean this up, then: Can we start by agreeing that "Line" & "Route" is contextually synonymous?
Can we then agree to consolidate all the present pages into one single pages, and set up redirects to that one consolidated page?
So instead of having > 40 pages ( > 2 x 20 pages), then just one single page with as many inbound redirects as needed or desired.
Furthermore ...
I did a random tour down one of the forks in this mess, and landed at: List of highways numbered 19
That's an incomplete list, and many of the articles included (linked in that list) are stubs, stubs with no real chance of getting anywhere meaningful. - The first one I picked (from the list) was Puerto Rico Highway 19, and lets throw a party, because: In little more than 24 hours, that article will be exactly 10 years old, yet does still only contain what more easily can be read of a map.
So, as I already said, this is part of a greater mess.
Well, "part of a greater mess" can more honestly be phrased as "motherfucking inane bottomless pit of unorganised ad hoc structure, a chaos produced by void of diligence, if not even void of intelligent behaviour" (a "wisdom of the crowd" product). - Even #TwitterHashTags are better. Not because they're more meaningful or present any structure, but because they don't pretend to represent anything (other than some sort of signal, hipster peacocking)
  • @DexterPointy: Primary state highways are considered notable per long-time consensus. Let's not mess with that for now. This is neither the time nor the place. Puerto Rico is a special case since it's not a state, I'll grant. Really, if we're going to touch anything more than the public transit articles, we need an RfC, not an AfD. So let's merge just the transit ones for now and start an RfC as needed to deal with the highways. Smartyllama (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Smartyllama: As the paradox says: "All generalisations are false" ;-) ... or "No rule without exceptions", which is a valid paraphrasing of WP:NORULES.
FYI! - I've just made the Puerto Rico Highway 19 perfectly redundant by editing yet another list-article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_highways_in_Puerto_Rico&type=revision&diff=826955210&oldid=808796212
In that process, I also discovered why it's probably non-notable: It's only 2.4km (1.5 miles) long short. (so, calling it a "primary state highway" sounds like ... a stretch?) --DexterPointy (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DexterPointy: Primary vs. Secondary State Highway isn't determined by length but by classification (though length usually figures into it). A number of states have numerous extremely short (<1 mile) secondary routes, which are not notable. In Virginia, virtually every public road outside of cities and a handful of counties are numbered routes, but only the primary ones as designated by the state are considered notable. However, in certain states, extremely short primary highwasy can be merged into one article - for instance List of primary state highways in Virginia shorter than one mile. However, a mile is usually the cutoff for those, so 2.4 miles would probably be worthy of its own article. See, for instance, New York State Route 113, which is about the same length, and numerous others. Again, if we want to have a discussion on what exactly the cutoff should be, this isn't the appropriate place to have it. Smartyllama (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Smartyllama: It's 2.4km, not 2.4miles, i.e. it's 1.5miles : Can I lure you into joining me here for handling the PR-19 thingy? --DexterPointy (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, at this point I would not object to a procedural close for the purpose of starting an RfC - there's way too much to deal with here at AfD since we have three sets of articles, two of which should definitely be merged with each other, and possibly with a third. But AfD is not really the place to deal with such a huge topic. And there's no point in wasting five more days here at AfD when it's not the right place to discuss what we want to discuss. Smartyllama (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Smartyllama: Agreed! --DexterPointy (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, ideally in my opinon we'd have 20 pages, one for each number. Combining all 40 lists into one page would be way too large, and not the proper way to disambiguate. Whether we should continue to separate public transit routes and highways as we do now is another issue, which can be discussed at an RfC once we close this. Smartyllama (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can we close this as no consensus already so we can start the appropriate RfC, since consensus seems to be that's the appropriate thing to do to determine redirects, merges, etc. Smartyllama (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This AfD has gone on for two weeks now. Let's not prolong the agony by moving the discussion elsewhere. Let's just close this this one according to consensus. If someone feels a need to open an RfC on other similar articles, fine. Rhadow (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's consensus, though? Redirect? Merge? Delete? All of those have been proposed. Smartyllama (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_public_transport_routes_numbered_19&oldid=1070604256"