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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of MCTS Bus Routes[edit]

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

Excessive amount of fancruft and original research. WP:NOTTRAVEL Ajf773 (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in my opinion: Yes it does still need work, but I think it could be fixed into a working state eventually. We already started on the table for the list of past mcts bus routes, and planning to add most of the routes to the table eventually. When has a bus route article really have been deleted? For example, these 2 discussions (from the London bus article) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_bus_routes_in_London and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_bus_routes_in_London_(2nd_nomination). I don't think this MCTS bus route article should be deleted, but I think it could be improved yes and we're working on it a bit each week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolbird942 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scores if not hundreds of this type of article have been deleted.Charles (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, so why now? No one else brought it up in the past 7 years before. I think it just needs some more sources cited. I still say keep. Could even rebuild the list up from the ground possible. I don't think this is really much of an issue. Might as well nominate the MCTS article itself for deletion as well if this one is going to go.Coolbird942 (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fancruft and pure original research. It fails notability, WP;NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTGUIDE.Charles (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Charles - Unsourced BUSCRUFT which fails NOTGUIDE as well as GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, lets make it fixable, can just go back to the wayback machine and get the links cited for some of the bus routes. I see that a lot on bus route articles. Or any improvements you might have in mind. Most of this information comes from MCTS itself. Coolbird942 (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Historical information on routes is better contained in neighborhood articles, street articles, or on an off-site fanpage. Most of the columns of unreferenced material should be eliminated, as they can change quickly (especially the Service Alerts...who would even include such a thing?). In addition to regular sourcing, the list would need secondary sources to establish notability, as sourcing from the transit agency itself can become problematic. Sounder Bruce 23:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I still say keep, but rework it instead of deleting. It's interesting how no one had a problem with it 7 years before, so considering the history, reworking it would be the better option rather than deleting the article instead. There's probably some sources that are out there to make it work in order to establish notability. So if it needs a major overhaul, I would be willing to work on it as i'm able too. So, I don't think deletion's the solution to a 7 year old article. Coolbird942 (talk) 11:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'll say keep as well. I believe that it needs to be improved in sources. I added in the route 10 to the table and linked some to the same source which I believe is closely affiliated with the subject. I do agree that some of the columns should be deleted. I will start deleting the service alerts. 148.8.23.141 (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2017 (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.