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. The majority presented cogent arguments that the topic meets WP:LISTN and is not simply a travel directory. This does not exclude the possibility that the article could be improved, but that is not an issue for AfD. RL0919 (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of San Francisco Municipal Railway lines[edit]

List of San Francisco Municipal Railway lines (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)

Delete per WP:not After reviewing, Wikipedia is not is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal Not a Travel guide (details of bus/train service are not pertinent here) . Wikipedia is not a information database (route infomation for buses, trams, municipal railways) .This page should be deleted . Once deleted, users can get transit route information on the local transit site which is heavily maintained by the agency them self, if a route been changed. The SFMTA Website provides up to date and accurate information. https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/muni/routes-stops Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_San_Francisco_Municipal_Railway_lines 13 years ago this page was proposed for deletion and somehow failed. Colton Meltzer (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep: This is an utterly frivolous nomination. This is a featured list - one that has passed examination as one of the best lists on Wikipedia - not a travel guide. It is not intended to provide up-to-the-minute travel information; it presents a high-level overview of service types and routes and is heavily cross-linked from other articles. (Note that the nominator first tried to PROD the article against policy, then harassed the closer of the old AfD. His claim that the old AfD "somehow failed" is clearly false - ten of twelve commenters indicated it should be kept.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The harassment claim is invalid accusation. This page is a Travel Guide. What is this 28 19th Avenue Inbound Terminal Van Ness and North Point | Outbound Terminal Daly City BART - 23 Monterey Inbound Terminal Palou and Third Outbound Terminal Great Highway and Sloat/Sloat and 47th Avenue) These are details of streets of stops or final stops. Something provided in SFMTA Routes and Stops website. Colton Meltzer. Many more examples. (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am not an expert on these sort of transport articles, but the fact that this was promoted to featured list status in 2010 and remains a featured list today says to me that the premise of the article is fundamentally sound and the article itself is well done. If the objection is to links to stale route sources, those links could be updated or even perhaps deleted. But deleting the whole article seems an unnecessarily extreme response to stale sources. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 04:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Being on "featured list" does not void Wikipedia guidelines. I agree, some information like the background should be kept and moved to this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Municipal_Railway#Route_namee Colton Meltzer (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, but consensus is policy and is part of one of our 5 pillars. See WP:5P4. If this article has been vetted by multiple editors and not only be found to be encyclopedic but worthy of featured list status--for 8 years, that is a strong consensus. A contested interpretation of WP:NOT is a weak argument for overturning such consensus. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 18:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Per Pi3.14 this seems quite frivolous; listings of train and bus lines are quite standard on Wikipedia (such as List of King County Metro bus routes and Metro Local. Perfectly notable and sourced topic that is not remotely a travel guide. However I could certainly see a restructuring that involves a partial merge with List of Muni Metro stations. I fail to see why bus routes being on their websites makes it invalid to be here. Reywas92^Talk 05:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sure this does not violates the WP:NOTTRAVEL ?

* 37-Corbett (goes to) Haight and Masonic

* 56 Rutland (goes to) McLaren Park (Visitacion Valley Middle School)

* NX Judah Express (goes to) Bush and Montgomery Colton Meltzer (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a reason for keeping an article in a deletion discussion. Spiderone 10:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a travel guide. The fact that this is a featured list is no reason to keep it. Spiderone 10:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for the following reason(s). At the first glance, it passes GNG and by virtue of being an FL, it clearly is a page of high quality. However, I got around to checking other cities. New York seems to have pages on List of Bus routes by borough. There's one for Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, et al. But then just because New York has a page, doesn't mean San Franciso gets to have one. I get it. Now List of Bus Routes in London has survived not one but two AfDs (albeit both were over a decade ago). One of the arguments then was "some things are encyclopedic to some but not to others" and I'm inclined to agree with that. I would ask folks to take a look at those AfDs and the deletion reviews linked there as well. My reasons for backing this article is more or less the same. This article acts as an index. It's primary intent is for tram routes (or cable car if you like it), which is fixed infrastructure. Subsequently it extends to bus routes, which ideally shouldn't be in this article with the current title. That's all. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, clearly relevant and encyclopedic information on a notable topic. I'm at a complete loss as to why anyone would think Wikipedia would be made better by deleting coverage of significant infrastructure in a major city. The deletion rationale has no more substance than a slogan—a completely superficial reading of NOTTRAVEL, as the details and examples given there of what kind of ephemeral or nonnotable content consensus has deemed unencyclopedic (pricing, contact info, nonnotable hotels, etc.) should show. It does not mean that we delete otherwise notable and valid information just because it could also possibly be useful to travelers (though I don't see how it really could be used as such without timetables, addresses, fare info, etc...which, as with most NOTDIR issues, we would just remove those details rather than deleting the whole page). postdlf (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to San Francisco Municipal Railway. Most of the content (with exception to the links to the route maps and schedules) can easily be moved to the parent article. Ajf773 (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The merge is good alternative option. Most of content shall be merged into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Municipal_Railway#Route_names and "Travel Guide Table for each Route can be a drop down table.The Agency also already setup a "Travel Guide" for riders to look up - https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/muni/routes-stops. Colton Meltzer (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as no different to a bus route list - I cannot find any evidence of notability nor can I find any indepth coverage - Closest we get to that is maps,

Being a FL isn't a reason to keep and as can be seen here one FL has already been deleted (That AFD was in 2009 so whether anyone knew it was a FL is anyones guess),

Fails NOTTRAVELGUIDE (to a certain point) and GNG/BASIC. –Davey2010^Talk 22:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

nor can I find any indepth coverage I have several books with substantial coverage (1 or more chapters) listing and describing the specific lines (not merely discussing the system or its history, but specific lines). Broader histories that discuss specific lines, and non-travel-guide information about current individual lines, are widely available in book and online sources (including this highly detailed analysis of service proposals.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's reasonably well written and well sourced. People read it. (Or at least they open the page.) It could do with some improvements to be sure, but you can say the same for (?virtually) every entry in wikipedia. Our principal customer for wikipedia is not ourselves and fellow contributors. It's the general reader. (Yes, sometimes the same person: very often not.) Someone sufficiently interested to key in a collection of words on a search engine to land on a page where he or she can learn more about something that she or he was wondering about. Why would you want to tell someone interested in this information that wikipedia won't help (despite folks having already done the work) because we think we know better what he/she should wish to know, or that he or she should look some place else? Regards Charles01 (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles01 - If you could replace each and every "schedule" and "maps" with actual reliable sources I'd be more than happy to keep .... –Davey2010^Talk 22:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As so often, we are faced with a choice between "improve" and "give up". I guess that in the absence of powerful evidence pointing the other way, I instinctively prefer the idea of improvement. You don't. But if the nominator here has already spent half a day looking for better sources and then failed in the attempt, I guess he would have told us so. I might even find his nomination more persuasive if he had done that. What we can both hope for is that someone more familiar with the available sources than (I suspect) either of us may now be stirred into action.... and that could well include adding or substituting better and more convincing sources. And please .... someone Charles01 (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer improvement over deletion but so far I've found nothing convincing although in many AFDs people find things I do not which could easily be the case here, The nominator would've performed BEFORE although agreed they should've said that,

If you could improve it that would be fab. –Davey2010^Talk 22:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was 13 years to improve this page, but people who want to look up travel in SF for each route should be directed to the agency website which shows a live GPS map, frequency of each bus and stops. Been told many times Wikipedia not a travel guide. https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/muni/routes-stops .

Here a example of "Transit Guide on Wikipedia similar to "List of San Francisco Municipal Railway lines " " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_York_City_Subway_services & https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Herald_Street_station&oldid=820997875 Colton Meltzer (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am not a proponent of PRODD Good or Feautured Articles before reassessment is done. But from what I see from this is a travel guide. Having schedule pdfs on it is wholly inappropriate.Trillfendi (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: This nomination makes no sense. While the links to the actual schedule may seem superflous, nearly every other major city transit system has an article similar to this. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 01:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vertium - Having major articles like this isn't a valid reason for keeping this, Can you please provide a policy based reason for !keeping, GNG is so far not met nor is BASIC so if you have any others I'l all ears. –Davey2010^Talk 02:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Davey2010 - Hi Davey - If maintaining similar articles isn't justification to your thinking, then I guess the opposite approach could be taken and we could nominate all city-wide mass transit articles. But I think that would be silly. I'm sorry you don't think I've sufficiently argued my !vote here, and since I noted that you have rebutted many of those who believe we should "keep", I'm going to politely decline to further comment, beyond this edit. Thanks! Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 02:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion shall last longer than last nomination to allow more users to review the direction of this Page. No way posting travel details for buses like "36th avenue, 37th avenue and 38th avenue" can be allowed. Colton Meltzer (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Article is well-written and sourced, and covers a notable subject.TH1980 (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nominator and i can see speedy keep from repeated speedy keep comments which is unacceptable to wikiepdia. AD ^Talk 04:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I can't see my way to supporting a deletion of the entire article although I'm not enthusiastic about the list of bus routes. In any event, though, it would have been better for the nominator to campaign to have the list demoted from Featured List status first, rather than nominating a Featured List for deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - I think there are reasonable arguments on both sides here. Ultimately I have to ask whether it would make sense to include a list of lines in a good article about the railway/bus system. I tend to think that, if space allows, the answer would be yes. So I'm not necessarily opposed to a merge. What we tend to do when such embedded lists get too long, however, is spin them out to a separate article. I'm surprised this made FL with so many external links and no sources outside the lead, but I don't think that's so relevant for this discussion's purpose. Presumably if this, a FL, is deleted on WP:NOT grounds, then then the entire category Category:Lists of bus routes in the United States (as well as for other countries) would also be deleted. That's the sort of thing that I think should be discussed with the relevant wikiprojects first. Not because wikiprojects determine notability, but because I think it's more about how best to handle this sort of information (in a parent article vs. a stand-alone). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Article is a list of public transportation routes which are as permanent as permanent is. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:LISTN. For example, see History of Public Transit in San Francisco. Andrew D. (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Canvassing by the nominator. Andrew D. (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This some sort of public stunt. Its random invites. Colton Meltzer (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it was canvassing, it was not effective. (I was pinged and !voted keep). :) Colton, pinging random specific people is often frowned upon because it's easily confused with (or overlaps with) canvassing. The best thing to do is to leave concise, neutral messages on discussion pages like a relevant wikiproject. Ping individuals only if, for example, that person has been involved with this page in the past. Rule of thumb anyway. I don't think there was any harm done here, regardless. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. I can't imagine what the nominator thought they were doing nominating a featured page without even attempting a discussion first. My rationale is as Vertium. This type of page is well established as desirable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Yes, OTHERSTUFF exists, but this stuff has repeatedly been kept by the community at AFD, and surviving an FAL review is even more significant. None of the nominators rationales, not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal, apply. The article is none of those things, and against that WP:5P asserts that Wikipedia is a gazetteer. I do think, however, that the inclusion of bus routes in an article on railway lines is odd and needs examining, but AFD is not the place to do that. SpinningSpark 17:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, so many of the complaints seem focused on bus route details, which could be excised if a consensus of knowledgeable editors decide that's not appropriate for this topic. That's a matter for informed and targeted editing, not wiping out a page. I think on the OTHERSTUFF issue, the fact that this is not a one-off page but rather part of a longstanding, and systematic attempt to document transit infrastructure in major cities around the world is evidence of a project-wide consensus among many more editors than those who drive by AFDs. postdlf (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The San Francisco Municipal Railway is a transit authority which operates a variety of lines, not just railways. The featured list nomination specifically focussed on its bus lines as kurykh wrote, "There are actually no featured bus line lists on Wikipedia, so I'm going to try to make this the first one." If the name of the authority seems anomalous then people who are bothered by this should take it up with them. They might also complain to the "London Underground" as the majority of its network (55%) is not actually underground! Andrew D. (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Andrew, I hadn't clocked that it was part of the authority's name. SpinningSpark 21:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — When WP:NOTTRAVEL was added in 2004 it said articles should "mention landmarks" but exclude telephone numbers and prices, and exclude advice on the best places to visit. Since then, the wording has been expanded and tweaked here and there, but the meaning has changed little. Exclude the changeable, the ephemera: phone numbers, prices, departure schedules, business hours. There are exceptions: the Georgetown Steam Plant is a museum only open one day a month for only four hours. The Maharajas' Express is perhaps the most expensive train ticket on Earth. But identifying the routes and constituent parts of transport lines falls well within the bounds of encyclopedic content -- What is it? Where is it? What's it called? What is it for? What does it do? What Plato and Aristotle would call the thing's essential, not accidental properties. The traits without which it would no longer be itself. Perhaps external links to train schedules are better off lower down in the page than up in the main tables, but that's WP:SURMOUNTABLE, outside the scope of AfD. Even so, WP:ELLIST actually suggests a travel guide external link as the right way to do it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Cards84664 (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Dennis Bratland's !vote just above. I'd like to see more history, and perhaps the linking to the ephemera could be handled better, but there's no need for deletion here. Transit infrastructure is a vitally important part of urban life, and thus a general encyclopedia should cover it. "Wikipedia is not a travel guide" means that we're not in the business of restaurant reviews. But we do write about how cities work. XOR'easter (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• 13 years from last nominations should of hinted "improvements", but still looks like same as before. I agreed there should be improvement (to distant away fro being travel guide), a merge into this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Municipal_Railway#Route_names. However, willing work with other to improve Request Deletion Closure' 20:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)Colton Meltzer (talk)
• Keep per Dennis and Andrew D. Also willing to work on it as with Colton Meltzer. SITH (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, not just a "improvement". Expected to be a major overhaul in coming days, once this is complete.

List of San Francisco Municipal Railway lines Page Improvement Plan

1. Merge into parent page section "route names"
2. Possible Template change for the list of routes.
3. to be discussed

Colton Meltzer (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • I don't think you're really reading the tenor of the discussion here correctly, but in any event the list's talk page is the proper place for you to raise your editing suggestions and try to establish consensus for them. postdlf (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just note, my stance remains at (Delete). Is there a specific Transportation Wiki page?
• Delete. You must be joking: this is 100% guide material, which belongs on Muni's own web site. If the Keep voters really and truly think this is salvageable, move it to Draft space so they can prove it. --Calton | Talk 06:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That why i request Articles for deletion remain open longer, because something 13 years ago is still here. The Travel Guide principles. Colton Meltzer (talk) 07:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. These recent discussions, which soundly reject the notion that NOTDIR excludes transit system/transportation-related lists, should also be considered: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 February 9#Adria Airways destinations and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 141#RFC: Should Wikipedia have lists of transportation service destinations?. There simply is no consensus that NOTTRAVELGUIDE = NOTTRANSITCOVERAGE; quite the contrary both as demonstrated in this AFD and in the broader community. postdlf (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already indicated, 13 years from last nominations should of hinted "improvements to distant away from being a travel guides", but still looks like same as before. San Francisco already have a "well dedicated - updated - Travel Guide for the routes - Once this page gets removed and retain background info to the parent page under route names as the most reasonable place to put the information. Add a link to direct users to the agency travel guides for routes - https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/muni/routes-stops Colton Meltzer (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This page isn't going to get removed, nor is there a consensus that it needs significant improvement in order to be kept. That's the whole point. The consensus is that it is not a "travel guide", whatever you think that means, and that was the same consensus 13 years ago, as that AFD was a clear "keep". You simply aren't understanding the discussions. postdlf (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this page should not be deleted as it is a notable topic with much coverage in reliable sources such as reliable book sources. It has been extensively reviwed as a high quality article and should not be subject to the WP:IDONTLIKEIT whims of editors who hate list articles for some reason or another. If Wikipedia starts deleting featured articles it is a very bad sign to the public that deletionism is going to extremes and that even the best articles are not safe Atlantic306 (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not about hate, but about WP:NOTTRAVEL. Does List of San Francisco Municipal Railway lines still fails some WP:NOTTRAVEL after 13 years from last nomination? Colton Meltzer (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is no less of an encyclopaedic list than when it was nominated for very similar reasons (and nearly unanimously kept) in 2006. There is plenty of evidence that the topic meets WP:GNG and WP:LISTN as well as passing the bar if it were considered just a sub-article of San Francisco Municipal Railway. Broader than just this article, lists of rail lines have been found, time and again, to be perfectly encyclopaedic topics so the nomination needs to detail what is different about this list, but it fails to do this. Finally, the nominator's main concern seems to be with some of the specific links/sources in the article - this is something that should be discussed on the article talk page as deleting the article would be overkill even without all the other reasons to keep. Thryduulf (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but no buses Railway lines are notable like canals and major highways partly because of the physical infrastructure on the ground per WP:GEOLAND. I have no idea why this article on railway lines features a list of bus routes - these may or may not be notable and should either be split to a seperate article or deleted.--Pontificalibus 11:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As explained above, the article is about all the lines operated by the SFMR and this specifically includes its many bus lines. The SFMR operates a variety of transport and they have much the same function and purpose: wheeled transport moving passengers from A to B along a route. The idea that trains are ok but buses are not seems to be an absurd prejudice. Andrew D. (talk) 11:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I remember now that US English has bus routes as "lines" (well, some of the time anwyay: Category:Lists_of_bus_routes_in_the_United_States) this is especially confusing with this title, and not just to me it seems. --12:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. NOTDIR does not apply. It does not require any significant change, either. Put into words better by several others above. --Doncram (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2019 (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.