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[edit]

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]

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]
  • 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]


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.
More