Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of key MBTA bus routes


 * 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. I'm sympathetic to the idea that the designation "key bus route" is not being set by an independent source, but one could make the same argument for List of Michelin 3-star restaurants, for example. This is not me trotting out an other-stuff-exists defense; what I am saying is that perhaps there should be an SNG discussion to decide the issue more broadly.

If a merge is appropriate, that can be discussed at the article's talk page.  A  Train talk 13:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

List of key MBTA bus routes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:NOR. Bus routes are almost always non-notable and an article with an non-specific inclusion criteria and a selection of 15 artitrary routes. Most of the sources fail to provide an evidence of notability Ajf773 (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment It's not an arbitrary selection of routes, but rather, the set that the MBTA has itself identified as "Key Bus Routes" . XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So, basically, self-published. Ajf773 (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * For large, bureaucratic and institutional values of "self", I suppose. The point I wanted to clarify was where this particular choice of route numbers came from, not whether those same routes are considered "key" by anyone other than the MBTA. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR, WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTTRAVEL and above all WP:N.Charles (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: this is a group of routes officially designated by the public transit agency as having high importance - not original research whatsoever - and given significantly higher profile and priority than local routes. (Compare List of Metro Express (Los Angeles County) bus routes and List of express bus routes in New York City, which are also based on the agencies separating out the routes.) They were chosen by the agency as their highest-ridership routes (not arbitrary selection criteria); most are also historically significant routes (and the article focuses on the historical significance of those routes rather than functioning as a travel guide) for which detailed reliable sources are available. The routes were the focus of a major construction project with BRT-light features, with the explicit intention of differentiating them from conventional local routes. They are given a high profile on the MBTA website, included on the MBTA rapid transit map, separately defined in the agency's current service delivery policy, and were the routes used for late-night service three years ago. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Basically everything you've added to this debate is direct from the MBTA website. Primary sources, no notability established whatsoever. Ajf773 (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , would you mind weighing in on the proposal below to rename to MBTA Key Bus Routes? I'm hoping the change would reduce future confusion on the purpose of this article. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The MBTA's selection of certain bus routes as "key" has been discussed by news media in the context of new transit maps being designed, debates over late-night service, etc.       It's a niche topic, I suppose, but it can be written about in a way that does not make the page a travel guide. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, looking over the other "list of bus routes in X" articles currently being AfD'ed, I'd say that out of all of them, this looks the least like a travel guide and the most like a "history of public transit in X" article. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Four more news items about the Key Bus Route Improvement Program   . XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And a couple more: . XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Having a look at those sources I can conclude that most of them fail to mention any specific bus routes, most of them only give out trivial mentions, all the sources are local (therefore the depth of coverage is not sufficient enough to grant notability) and a few of the sources appear to be self published. Ajf773 (talk) 08:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As a side comment: Since when it is a rule that non-local source geography required to establish encyclopedic notability? If we used that as a hard rule it would wipe out a large swath of transit-related articles, where the subject matter is regional and therefore the bulk of available sources eminate from that region. I usually see national coverage raised as an issue when establishing the notability of short-duration events, not enduring establishments like transit systems or their core components. The MBTA has maintained a "Key Bus Routes" designation for over a decade now, with real effects on a regional transit system and its users, which supports notability. Shelbystripes (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Boston magazine is not self-published. Nor are the Globe, WBUR, BostInno, Wickedlocal.com, Boston.com or the BU campus newspaper. I think Patch.com exercised editorial oversight as well. I left out search hits on sites like Universal Hub which look to be more on the "blog with a readership" part of the spectrum. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of those sources make no mention of bus numbers or the to and froms and most of those aren't reliable sources either (some are, most aren't). – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 22:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Partial Merge to MBTA Bus. There are several other articles on Boston bus routes; I can't find any rule-based reason to keep those pages or the per-route descriptions (in the "Route list" section).  However, the designation of these as "key routes" isn't WP:OR and there's enough information that it should be mentioned somewhere. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 19:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Still looking for a good independent source (other than a primary source by the MBTA operator) that establishes these are key routes and worthy of an article. Ajf773 (talk) 08:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep (and rename) - The nominator appears to misunderstand the subject matter here, which I can understand given the title. This is not a subjective and original list of key bus routes in a city, it's a page describing a category of bus routes in Boston formally designated as "Key Bus Routes", a unique status with distinct features (both operationally and legally/funding-related) that differentiate them from other MBTA bus routes. Multiple reliable secondary sources confirm this usage, as indicated above. While the MBTA is a primary source, many transportation articles rely partially on primary sources for the simple reason that secondary sources just don't repeat material found in primary sources. However, since this page is more than a mere list and ask explains the history and characteristics of Key Bus Routes, I would propose removing the confusing "List of" and renaming to MBTA Key Bus Routes. I would be willing to do post-move cleanup work to better serve the new title. Shelbystripes (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * (To be clear, I endorse keeping either way, whether the move/rename is also adopted or not.) Shelbystripes (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Renaming sounds like a good idea. The fact of the existence of a separate category of bus routes is more significant than the particular numbering of routes within it. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is fun: while looking for local/regional government sources (of which there are some &mdash; city councilors and such), I turned up a civil engineering master's thesis from MIT on this topic. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand the subject matter perfectly. The AfD questions both the criteria of key bus routes being original research and whether any of the bus routes are notable in their own right (or as a collective). It appears from all the sources presented, that the key bus routes criteria is a self published by the bus brand themselves and that notability is yet to be established as the sources are mostly trivial mentions. Ajf773 (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the fact that you keep referring to this as a "self-published list" (and to a regional multimodal transit agency as a "bus brand") shows you don't know the subject matter at all. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I would not be opposed to a rename. "Key Bus Routes" appears to be used as a specific noun phrase in most of these sources. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep (or rename to MBTA Key Bus Routes program) - The article needs to be expanded to include more about the history of the program and the current improvements they're working on for these routes, but it has gotten a lot of press over the years for the reasons others have stated, including late night service and key-route-specific bus stop improvements and treatments. I don't understand the "original research" claim by the nominator as that is for editors on Wikipedia, not government agencies providing the service in question. As for "self published", where else would this information come from if not the MBTA? Other editors have provided link after link of sources from reliable news outlets outside of the MBTA's control to show the notoriety and depth of press coverage in the region. While someone in another country might not care much about a list of bus routes in a random medium-sized city in the US, can't that be said about a vast majority of articles on Wikipedia about local and regional matters? Grk1011 (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Again. Routine coverage about night services and bus stop improvements is trivial at best. Where is some actual resources showing the history of these "key routes" from valid third party and independent (non MBTA published) sources. Wikipedia is not a bus fansite catered to a small audience. Ajf773 (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Independent third party sources discussing Key Bus Routes were already provided above by another user. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Which ones, and be specific. Ajf773 (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't been involved in AfDs much very recently, but you're being a bit inflammatory here. Editors can state their reasons and provide whatever backup they feel is necessary. An admin will then read over the responses and make a decision based on the apparent consensus (not votes) of the community. There is no requirement that you, as the nominator, are satisfied with the responses. Grk1011 (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that an AfD is a consensus, not a vote. I am, like anyone else participating, allowed to dispute claims. Ajf773 (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Your objections have been clearly noted by now. You are coming across as berating each and every editor who votes, not adding anything new in the process, just repeating what you'd already said before they voted. Clearly not everyone agrees with your interpretation of WP:ROUTINE or WP:NOR or WP:N regarding this topic, and they should be free to express votes or ideas contrary to yours without fear of beratement. Assuming in good faith that this is not your intent, your tone and repetition still come across as hostile and may discourage editors who would disagree with you from commenting, undermining the integrity of the AfD process. Please consider the consequences of your continued aggressive responses. Newly participating editors can already consider the quality of sources provided (for example) and your objections to them, since your objections are already recorded further above in full. Shelbystripes (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Given you understand this is a debate and I am allowed agree or disagree with everything that is added this this discussion, from where I see it. I don't see the need for you to post this, it adds nothing of value to the discussion. Ajf773 (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. Those who want to keep this article need to actually produce secondary sources that specifically discuss this set of routes, instead of attacking an editor who points out the lack of significant wider secondary coverage.Charles (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue was that over a dozen secondary sources were linked in the various responses above, but this editor does not appear to like them, claiming they are either regional press (and somehow bad) or the source of their articles is the primary source (MBTA). I simply pointed out that asking the same question to every single commenter when it's has already been answered is disruptive. It's bizarre that we're expected by this one editor to find some outside source to prove that the MBTA has designated its own routes as key. Only the MBTA can decide that and the criteria for being "key" are listed and sourced. As a government body, its procedures are transparent. Grk1011 (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have mentioned why I don't think they are up to the standard of sources required for notability. Bus routes are not notable unless there is significant and independent coverage in secondary sources. MBTA itself is a primary source. Other sources which mention things like service changes are trivial (and most of them don't even mention any of the route numbers or any mention of "key routes". As there is a lot of historical content in the article space but a lack of sources validating them, I'm still unconvinced. Ajf773 (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fine, as long as you actually understand the requirement here is not to convince you personally. Your personal approval is not necessary. Other editors clearly do accept the sources already provided, even if you don't. They're not required to convince you if you insist on remaining unconvinced. You do understand that, right? Shelbystripes (talk) 06:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Merge was discussed and rejected back in 2008 on the talk page.  The point is not to say that this topic should or should not be merged, but that it is a violation of WP:Deletion policy to use WP:DEL8 to delete topics with merge targets, and there is no argument made here for IAR.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Charles and nom - Fails WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:BUSCRUFT and WP:GNG - Back in 2014 the UK bus routes were all deleted due to a lack of notability and there's nothing different with these, Also if a passenger wants to know where a bus goes to and from then they should check the bus operators website - not an encyclopedia!, and last but not least a lot of these all become outdated anyway (One article a few years back was 5 years out of date!), In short this whole article fails GNG as well as the bus-related guidelines. – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 13:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As noted above, this page is more than a mere list and is not intended to just provide route information; it's a description of a specific subset of bus routes that are treated differently than other bus routes for MBTA operational and funding purposes. To prevent confusion on this point, I proposed above that the article be moved to MBTA Key Bus Routes (and volunteered to do cleanup work to this effect).  Several other editors commented in favor of this approach. Shelbystripes (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is however like the other deleted articles this too fails GNG, I have to disagree this does provide route information (the articles contains numbers, tos, froms, maps and times so as such this fails NOTGUIDE). – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 22:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read the article (and perhaps a few sources) rather than rashly claiming this is a travel guide. Detailing the frequency and span-of-service standards that the agency uses is not a schedule. Giving the official names of the routes (the MBTA and its predecessors have always used number + terminal/route as the official name) is no more a travel guide than saying that Amtrak trains 1/2 is the Sunset Limited. And the map - notably not the current map - is used to illustrate that the agency considers the routes important enough to include on the rapid transit map, not as a map to actually navigate the system. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * All in a nutshell it's a travel guide, As you spend your time with everything MBTA it's blatantly obvious you're going to debunk everyones !votes and harp on repeating the same hymn about how it's not a travel guide and how we're all wrong- I'll save you the bother - It's a travel guide, No matter what way or which way you look at it ... it's a travel guide, As I said it includes prices, destinations, bus company names, maps ..... Telling me the map is for this and the prices are for that doesn't prove a thing - I'm judging the article on an outside perspective and how I personally percieve it. – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 04:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Where does the article include prices? (Apart from mentioning the $10 million price tag for the Key Bus Routes Improvement Project.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Move to draft- or userspace so as to be worked on as suggested. -- J04n(talk page) 18:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is inappropriate. I offered to improve the article if moved to MBTA Key Bus Routes to ensure the article aligns with the new title.  That work isn't necessary if the article isn't moved.  Either way, it's already a developed article with multiple reliable sources and should not be userfied. Shelbystripes (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be worked on and if someone wants to add sources (other than timetables) then they can do so here. – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 22:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep If you look at the Category:Lists of bus routes in the United States you will see lots of transit route lists.  What makes this one special enough to deserve exclusion from that pattern? Trackinfo (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ajf773 (talk) 09:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Simply linking to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a non-response and adds no value to the discussion. It's an essay (not a policy) and notes that there can be "valid or invalid" reasons for raising "other stuff exists" as an argument, and that when the point is fairly argued, "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." It seems to me that a valid question was raised (what distinguishes this article from an array of other articles that have been established on Wikipedia), and it is fair to expect a valid answer from you on that, not just a link to an essay that can cut both ways. Shelbystripes (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may not be a policy but a simply concept meaning we don't assume keep because articles of similar nature exist. Many of them are candidates for AfD as well. We don't bulk AfD articles as each article should be assessed on its own merits. Ajf773 (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You are using circular logic and mischaracterizing the content of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It specifically says that precedent and concistency are valid reasons to consider, and the question posed to you was what about this article makes it worthy of deletions when other similar articles exist.  You completely ignored that question, and posted a link to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS instead of an actual answer.  You're now taking that one step further, using the potential for some other articles to be deleted in the future, to argue that this one should be deleted now also.  The fate of those AfDs is far from assured, since they haven't even begun yet.  Now, can you give a valid explanation for what makes this article less notable than other articles in the same category, as you were asked? Shelbystripes (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS appears to be the obvious answer from the original question. We simply do not use the existence of other articles as a basis for keeping or deleting articles. We are discussing this article on its own merits, not the merits of other articles. There are plenty of reasons already given in this discussion why I believe this article does not comply with the basic policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Ajf773 (talk) 10:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just because one article has something it doesn't mean another article should - All articles at AFD are judged on their own, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep any article and as such AJ was correct in linking this here, Can you actually provide a valid reason to keep other than "It exists elsewhere".... – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 18:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not the point. Ajf773 was the one who invoked WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to justify deleting an article.  As a mere essay, it alone is not a valid reason to delete any article, when (as actually observed on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), "identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into the general concept of notability".  Someone identified an entire category of similar articles, and so far no valid reason has been given for disregarding that whole category of articles when considering this particular AfD. Shelbystripes (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * My point in bring up the category is that there are 64 lists of bus routes in that US based category (and more globally). Other than this one, I haven't found one that has been taken to AfD.  Articles for deletion/Key MBTA bus routes dating back to 2006, meaning this has been around for, actually 12 and a half years.  Poor wikipedia has been in disrepute for all this time because of its existence (that's sarcasm).  It also means this one has been taken to AfD twice now.  Again, what makes this one special?  At the time it was saved as no consensus, even though there were  5 Keeps to 3 Deletes.  One of the Delete votes commented astutely;  "Delete its a bag of crap.", another was just "per nom", so the argument of that third delete vote had to be a doozey to outweigh all those Keeps.   One Keep respondent noted Articles for deletion/London Buses route 1 which was a Speedy Keep-Withdrawn.  If you are prepared to take all of those 64+ lists to AfD, then that is a different wholesale discussion.  Otherwise the long term existence of all of this stuff proves a de facto validity to keeping these lists. Trackinfo (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Per unscintillating: if it's got a merge target, then a merge discussion is preferred by policy to any deletion. Jclemens (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Whether this subject is notable for an article depends not on the existence of similar articles, but on whether there is a definite and finite set of routes that have recieved significant secondary source coverage outside of the immediate locality. Without that it is just original research.Charles (talk) 10:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Certainly, so someone in the delete camp needs to explain why this list is deficient, not arguing that the general concept of such a list should be deleted.Trackinfo (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If the content comes from external sources, it's not original research, even if those sources were published in Boston (which not all of them were). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Certainly, so someone in the delete camp needs to explain why this list is deficient" .... we have ... a good 2-3 times, If you want to ignore policy based reasons then that's up to you but asking everyone to repeat their reasons again and again and again is disruptive, You have your answers above and you have also have solid policy-based !Delete arguments bove .... unlike the !Keeps which are all essentially "Keep because WP:ITSNOTABLE". – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 18:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I've been adding references to urban-planning studies that investigate individual MBTA key bus routes. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You are failing to understand that the set of routes taken together need secondary sources. Urban planning studies are primary sources.Charles (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We already have two references not from the MBTA that discuss the grouping of these routes into a common category. In fact, that's what the list is sourced to at the moment. The point of citing references that discuss specific routes within that category is to make historical information available about those specific routes &mdash; information that is independent of the MBTA and not characteristic of a travel guide. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOR 45 sources, many of them from government agencies but multiple government agencies reporting this information. Clearly refuted.
 * Bus routes are almost always non-notable proved false by the existence of the 64 other lists I identified.
 * an article with an non-specific inclusion criteria and a selection of 15 artitrary routes. Most of the sources fail to provide an evidence of notability. the sources I found in a simple Google search shows these are specifically identified routes based on federal, state, associated cities and the agency itself. The identification of these routes are sourced in the article dating back to 2006, clearly a dozen years before the NOM.  Did you really read that?  So the basis of the entire NOM is disingenuous to begin with.
 * Delete per WP:OR, WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTTRAVEL and above all WP:N an astute echo of the NOM.
 * Delete as per Charles and nom - Fails WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:BUSCRUFT and WP:GNG Another echo.  And there is no WP:BUSCRUFT, you made that up.  Following that, yes, finally there is a true statement Category:Lists of bus routes in the United Kingdom has been decimated by noms by you Davey2010.  And with a discussion by a microscopic number of commenters.  What a terrible disservice to people outside of London.  The perceived salt of that action is probably what is preventing the other content from reappearing.  As to the statement if a passenger wants to know where a bus goes to and from then they should check the bus operators website.  We, wikipedia, are the primary source of information on the internet.  People come here to learn.  Even locally, I am astounded how few people know the name of their local bus operator.  I happen to have done a documentary that broached this subject so I have done actual research.  Ok that statement was WP:OR but its also not in the article.  At least here in the US, people don't know how to find the local operator.  We, as the place people come for information, should have the information.  Then at best they are three clicks away from finding the company, its website and the generic schedule page in varying forms of presentation (some of which absolutely suck).  If editors have gone through the trouble to present this information, someone explain in actual words (rather than ambiguous essays or non-existent policy statements), what is the problem with wikipedia having this information publicly available?
 * I've never been to Massachusetts, I have no dog in this fight. Nor do I have a dog in UK, though I have visited decades ago.  What I learn is from what is in the article, its attached sources and Google.  Unlike a lot of AfDs, there is a lot of there there.  I extremely dislike aggressive stupidity trying to push legitimate content off of wikipedia. Trackinfo (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - This AfD has been relisted multiple times and there is clearly, at a minimum, no consensus to delete. I propose closing the AfD without deletion. Shelbystripes (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Shelbystripes has !voted Keep above so ofcourse they're going to say this, Consensus in my eyes is towards delete due to the GNG-failing at best however I !voted delete so shan't say what I believe. – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 00:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm eager for an outside observer to weigh in now. With the number of editors who have !voted Keep (and given consistent reasoning for doing so) and the utter failure of the Delete commenters to explain why this post warrants deletion when many similar articles are considered notable, I can't see anything remotely close to a Delete consensus. Perhaps someone who hasn't weighed in yet will be able to resolve this mystery. Shelbystripes (talk) 02:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We've explained a good 3-4 times why it should be deleted, All of the keeps are nothing more than "WP:ILIKEIT - not a valid reason to keep, Alls we need is an admin to come a long, read the consensus and smack the delete button. – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 02:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's almost the exact opposite of the actual discussion. One Delete commenter literally just linked to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and when pressed on the fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS actually says a general body of articles may be considered when evaluating notability in an AfD, basically said "Well I want to nominate those other articles for deletion too". You cannot use your hypothetical future AfDs of other similar articles to justify deleting this article. That is not how Wikipedia works. And reading the rest of the discussion, the consistency of editors weighing in against Delete, and the fact that two relistings were required and still couldn't generate consensus, I can't see how any rational person would interpret this discussion as a consensus for Delete. Shelbystripes (talk) 02:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't believe this AfD will end up with a consensus. Ajf773 (talk) 04:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nor do I. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I also agree that there's no consensus; the multiple different content change / merge proposals can be discussed elsewhere. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 18:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Only an uninvolved admin can decide whether there is a concensus, having given due weight to policy based argument.Charles (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Selective Merge- The history section only should be merged into MBTA Bus. The route descriptions fall under WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL as others have mentioned about.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2018 (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.