Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States commuter rail systems by ridership


 * 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. WP:SNOW Keep (non-admin closure)  D u s t i *poke* 20:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

List of United States commuter rail systems by ridership

 * – ( View AfD View log )

It is with great dismay that I nominate these articles for deletion since I've worked on updating them, but I now think these should go. They are basically just rehashings and copyings of the official APTA reports. While it is a reliable source, it doesn't belong in a separate article. There are already lists of commuter rail, light rail, and heavy rail transit systems in the US/North America. WP:NOT. &mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 20:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I understand its a list of stats. Stats are useful and they are presented using WP:CITE and meet WP:V. Maybe duplication but still useful. -- Takamaxa ( Talk ) 02:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Once again an editor is under the impression tat WP:NOT and WP:NOT somehow "bans" statistics. It doesn't and even states guidelines on how to present them.  From WP:NOT#STATS: "articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists."  That's exactly what these articles do and even more so than the example cited in WP:NOT#STATS.  In actuality it is a valid argument to say "Keep per WP:NOT#STATS." --Oakshade (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. These are well-sourced and well-presented factual lists that, as Oakshade says, are perfect examples of how statistical articles should be presented on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - per Lists &amp; Stand-alone lists. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep --Jkfp2004 (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.