Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus transit systems in the United States
- 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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of bus transit systems in the United States
- List of bus transit systems in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Borderline listcruft. If it were ever completed (unlikely), this list would have thousands of entries, and be of very little use. Every city of a very modest size has a bus system, and most of these systems are not likely to have their own articles. A person wanting to know about them would be more likely to look in the article about the city. LP talk 02:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or reformulate - delete as endless list, possibly reformulate as a list of lists by state... But the category system could be used for this anyways. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 06:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The argument that "a person wanting to know about them would be more likely to look in the article about the city" makes the assumption that every city's article has a section about its mass transit system. Some users of reference works prefer to glance at tables rather than to click on individual articles. It's a sortable table and worthwhile as a navigational aid for persons looking for more than the name of the bus line. Although there are cases where a category is just as good as a list, that wouldn't be the case here. More often than not, the names of transit systems often do not give a clue as to the location of the operation (Unitrans, Tri Delta Transit, SMART, SEPTA, MARTA, etc.). Mandsford (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Creator Comment - I created the article because I noticed that, although there's a lot of articles on United States bus systems, the articles seem poorly organized and there isn't any equivalent to List of rail transit systems in the United States where a curious person can browse all of the systems in the United States. I'm also not sure what Lord Pistachio means by saying that the list would have thousands of entries, because I would be surprised if there were that many entries. --Apollo1758 (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Both you (Apollo1758) and the nominator (LP) are allowed to cast a "vote" to go along with your comments. Although it's likely that the nominator would say delete and the article's originator would say keep, it gives a clearer picture on how many separate people are weighing in with opinions. Mandsford (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, Keep. The articles pertaining to United States bus systems lack a comprehensive parent article, and according to WP:LISTS, one of the purposes of a list is to serve as a helpful navigational aid by listing articles associated with a topic. In addition, WP:CLN states that the usage of categories and lists to group articles is beneficial and complementary, and that neither should be considered in conflict with the other one. --Apollo1758 (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Both you (Apollo1758) and the nominator (LP) are allowed to cast a "vote" to go along with your comments. Although it's likely that the nominator would say delete and the article's originator would say keep, it gives a clearer picture on how many separate people are weighing in with opinions. Mandsford (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Well-done and concise compilation, akin to List of rail transit systems in the United States. Serves as a natural table of contents and index of Wikipedia, per WP:LISTS. TJRC (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as this entirely novel list topic contravene the prohibition on original research. As far as I can see, this list, or anything like it, has not be been published anywhere except within Wikipedia, so there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable. To demonstrate that this topic was not created out of thin air, a verifiable definition is needed to comply with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your assertions are unsupported by the policies to which you point. For example, WP:CONPOL says that OR is a novel narrative or historical interpretation and this is not the case in this article. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd add that the policy against original research does not mean that one would have to track down a previously published list or table. It does require that the entries on a list be sorted, which would be fairly easy, since most city transit systems have a website. Mandsford (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it has not been published elsewhere, then how would you distinguish it from WP:MADEUP? Without a verifiable source for this list, there is no rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia in accordance with WP:BURDEN. Why should Wikipedia be allowed to be used as platform for original research when it comes to lists, but not to articles? Every topic must be verfiable, whether it is a list or an article - hearsay that the topic can be verified, or that the existence of list topics is exempt from WP:V is not acceptable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Every item on the list is verifiable from sources that are published elsewhere, so it's easy to toss in sources. An article, a table, a list-- all are, ultimately, a collection of statements of facts, arranged by the persons who write them. Facts should be cited so that people can see for themselves. It's simply a matter of sourcing the individual facts on the list in the same way one sources multiple statements within the narrative of an article. All that is required is a citation to a reliable and verifiable source. The first item on the list, ABQ RIDE, has a link within its article ([1]) which shows that it operates bus routes in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The link can be taken from one page and brought to another page, depending on how much sourcing is considered reasonable. There's no difference. Mandsford (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No disrespect intended, but you may be confusing a list topic (which has not been verified) with the content of the list. So if I create a "List of stuff" and you add ABQ RIDE, that does not mean that the list topic has been externally validated. This list lacks a published definition which provides evidence that this list exists in the real world. If there is no antecedent for this list topic, then it is original research and fails WP:MADEUP. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Every item on the list is verifiable from sources that are published elsewhere, so it's easy to toss in sources. An article, a table, a list-- all are, ultimately, a collection of statements of facts, arranged by the persons who write them. Facts should be cited so that people can see for themselves. It's simply a matter of sourcing the individual facts on the list in the same way one sources multiple statements within the narrative of an article. All that is required is a citation to a reliable and verifiable source. The first item on the list, ABQ RIDE, has a link within its article ([1]) which shows that it operates bus routes in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The link can be taken from one page and brought to another page, depending on how much sourcing is considered reasonable. There's no difference. Mandsford (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it has not been published elsewhere, then how would you distinguish it from WP:MADEUP? Without a verifiable source for this list, there is no rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia in accordance with WP:BURDEN. Why should Wikipedia be allowed to be used as platform for original research when it comes to lists, but not to articles? Every topic must be verfiable, whether it is a list or an article - hearsay that the topic can be verified, or that the existence of list topics is exempt from WP:V is not acceptable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A helpful navigational list per WP:LISTS. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:PURPLIST for navigation. --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 02:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Absolutely not a novel list, you can find lists of transit systems on the American Public Transportation Association website [2]. Otherwise, perfectly valid survey of public transportation companies in the US, and serves a valid navigational purpose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep a person might well want a survery or general listing before proceeeding to details. The argument against this is an argument against having any general articles. DGG ( talk ) 06:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I've seen plenty of band ideas for lists come through AFD. This is not one of them. Transit systems are a major notable feature of any metropolitan area, and a list of them makes perfectly good sense. -- Whpq (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A helpful and entirely encyclopedic list, as types of transit systems are generally grouped in a general navigation list (e.g. List of rail transit systems in the United States, List of United States light rail systems by ridership). References can certainly be found for this, and nothing about it constitutes original research. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Reformulate. There are five to six thousand transit agencies in the US, however most of them are provide limited social service functions (e.g. senior, disabled, Medicaid , etc). The list should be limited to those that provide transportation to the general public and should be categorized by state. In this way individuals can find out which communities have transit and have a link to the page if it exists. Rkilcoyne (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC) rkilcoyne[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_bus_transit_systems_in_the_United_States&oldid=1069010136"