Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MTA Regional Bus Operations bus fleet

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. There is a consensus to keep the article. There is also a consensus that the article needs some cleanup (especially regarding its references), which can be worked out in the article and its talk page. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MTA Regional Bus Operations bus fleet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fails WP:GNG; WP:NOTDIR. Majority of items sourced by one source which appears to be a blog site, lacks significant secondary coverage and reliable sources. The two MTA sources only specify mandated widths on vehicles. Nightfury 14:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 14:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 14:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 14:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I don't see a substantial question as to whether this is verifiable regardless of the current state of links on the page. The MTA's infrastructure, as with any comparably large and notable transit agency, is a relevant part of our coverage. postdlf (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Total fancruft mostly sourced by self published sources. Ajf773 (talk) 08:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but reduce information that isn't easily cited or can't be cited at all. Mtattrain (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it is still relevant to MTA Buses, the article just needs more citations. BWCNY (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • BWCNY, Relevance is not a suitable reason to keep the article. Can you find more sources for the article? Nightfury 08:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, Very relevant fleet page, also TTMG is not a blog, and as far as I know, no one who is a frequent editor to this article is also a TTMG editor (I know I am not) Best, MTATransitFan^Chat! 03:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• From a glance, TTMG appears to be a self published fansite. Ajf773 (talk) 07:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• MTATransitFan, see WP:UGC; may I ask you to reconsider your vote. Nightfury 08:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nightfury:, still think it is very notable. What does UGC have to do with any of this? Best, MTATransitFan^Chat! 22:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @MTATransitFan: The roster parts of TTMG and the CPTDB wiki are both wikis, which are user-generated content, which seem to not be acceptable sources but are heavily used on the page regardless. Mtattrain (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If anything, lots of information (quantities, stuff cited by CPTDB and TTMG fan sites) can be removed while retaining the article. Mtattrain (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Then there would less content than in MTA Regional Bus Operations#Fleet, and fewer sources. Peter James (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a notable topic, given the size of the agency. It's not a question of the sourcing - the sources are bad right now, but they can be improved. Unlike the retired fleet articles, which are not notable as standalone topics, an article about the bus fleet in the United States' largest city is definitely notable. There are definitely sources on current aspects of the fleet, such as how the MTA plans for the fleet to be all electric by 2040 even though only 0.5% of the fleet's 5,800 buses are currently electric. There's also info on historical aspects, such as how nearly a thousand buses had to be scrapped in the 1980s, or how the MTA was the first large U.S. transit agency with an accessible bus fleet. For this it passes WP:GNG. Now, considering WP:NOTDIR, it is possible to expand the article with information that is directly relevant to the history and status of the fleet, while cutting out trivia-like portions of the article. I haven't performed an extensive search into sources, but there exist sufficient sources that the topic of the MTA Bus fleet meets WP:GNG. Epicgenius (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That topic is at MTA Regional Bus Operations#Fleet. Peter James (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The topic really should not be given this much coverage in the MTA RBO page. It should really be an overview of the fleet, per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. That doesn't change my argument this is a notable topic. Epicgenius (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe some of that information could be moved over to this page if it is decided to keep this article and when editors decide to cut out the cruft. Mtattrain (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems that the consensus is to keep the active fleet article (albeit remove fan site sources, etc.) and delete the two retired fleet articles. Mtattrain (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NOTDIR says "an article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules" - it doesn't specify whether that applies to a separate article but the guideline is about whether it is encyclopedic content or not. An active fleet article would be similar to a current schedule article for a broadcaster. Peter James (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not at all a valid comparison. A bus route schedule, which this clearly isn't, would be most akin in this topic to a broadcast schedule. Noting what equipment is in active use and what is not is more comparable to noting current, former, and upcoming series broadcast by a network, which we do (see subsections here, for example). postdlf (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Possibly but I still think it's unencyclopedic to present "current" information such as this. List of HBO original programming is a list of notable topics, the sections are only a way of organising it. Peter James (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a notable topic, and merging it with MTA Regional Bus Operations will be too cumbersome for the MTA article. Deleting should not be the solution as the contents of the article are notable, given the size of the fleet and it is serving one of the biggest urban center in the world. SunDawn (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It's possible the topic is notable, but are there sources for the content of the article that demonstrate notability? Peter James (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A notable topic (e.g. fleet details discussed here), it's reasonable to have a list, as List of bus types used in London. The level of detail and sourcing can be debated on the article talk page. Even if you strip out the content sourced to TTMG (which seems borderline whether it's an WP:RS), there are still other reliable sources out there which can be used to support a list of vehicle types. Personally I'd rename the article to make it broader and include the historical fleet, as notability isn't temporary.----Pontificalibus 16:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, I don't see why we wouldn't document past fleet assets as well as present. postdlf (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that List of bus types used in London is notable. Peter James (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

seriously? --Pontificalibus 17:43, 12 March 2021 (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.