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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New York City transit fares[edit]

New York City transit fares (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)

A lot of Original research and unsourced material in present in this article. Also appears to be against WP:NOTGUIDE. A summary of this should be included in the main articles in question. Mdann52 (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is akin to sending MetroCard (New York City) and SmartLink (smart card) for deletion, too. It does not violate WP:NOTGUIDE. It is summarized in these respective articles, but having a centralized page for this is a better way to go. epic genius (talk) 02:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I endorse my keep because, well, this is notable. Just because someone did not place secondary sources doesn't mean they don't exist, as WP:BEFORE. epic genius (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, no longer "speedy" due to the "speed" of this discussion. epic genius (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, per Epic Genius. A centralized page for the fares makes much more sense, and there's no OR in this article whatsoever. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Wikipedia is not to be used to republish commercial information, and that is all this article consists of. I have been told by User:Epicgenius that there are no reliable secondary sources on this topic and that is also an indication that it should be deleted. --John (talk) 08:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @John: That is not actually what I meant. I said that the article doesn't need secondary sources for the fares. However, it is very easy for me to find secondary sources for the fare histories. epic genius (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. It is hard to read this other than as what I said but ok. If there are secondary sources, now is the time to bring them in as otherwise I think the article will need to be deleted. If there are other articles in this condition, they will also need to be brought in line with our norms. --John (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is what I am working to do right now. epic genius (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:BEFORE. Many secondary sources exist about this topic. Bearian (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Epic Genius and DanTD. There is no OR in the article. Vcohen (talk) 09:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A)This can and will overtime become severely outdated, B) We're not a guide - It all belongs on the travel operators website, –Davey2010^Talk 00:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are speaking about the first half of the article, right? Vcohen (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, this article is about historical and current fares. As current fares become historic, new fares become updated. In fact, all articles will become outdated over time. Second, there are a lot of transit operators represented here. WP:NOTGUIDE is when the article is named MTA fares or PATH fares. epic genius (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm well aware what the article is, We don't need an article on bus fares in the US or any country for that matter - There's nothing encyclopedic or even notable about it, NOTGUIDE is basically this entire article. –Davey2010^Talk 03:31, 14 November 2015 (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.