Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of major cities in U.S. lacking Amtrak service


 * 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. Consensus is that the sources available are sufficient to write an appropriate list article on this topic, particularly via the strong arguments given by DGG and Newyorkbrad. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

List of major cities in U.S. lacking Amtrak service

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The sources do not appear to discuss these as a group, failing WP:LISTN. I would not oppose a significant re-working of the article into something akin to List of cities with discontinued Amtrak service, which may be useful, but listing cities who have never had service or even reportedly wanted service is excessive in the absence of strong sourcing discussing these as a group. ~ RobTalk 22:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Trivial list, also subjective as to what constitutes a "major city".  Dough   4872   02:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The determination of what is a "major" city is arbitrary; even if it were objective, it would still be an indiscriminate list. -- Kinu  t/c 05:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as not convincing for its own article, still questionable for solidity. SwisterTwister   talk  06:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inclusion criteria are subjective and the list itself fails WP:LISTN. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think LISTN can be met: the idea that major US markets are underserved (or not served at all) by intercity rail is a frequent topic in reliable sources and many of the locations in that article are discussed. That being said, I highlighted numerous problems with the article in 2012 and they've gone unaddressed. A paragraph, no more, discussing the notable omissions (Phoenix, Las Vegas, Columbus) should find its way into Amtrak if this article is deleted. Mackensen (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep (hopefully with improvements) per Mackensen. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as an indiscriminate and non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. The general topic would be appropriately addressed in a "history of Amtrak" article, but this list fails multiple criteria. Regards, James (talk/contribs)
 * Delete as trivia. Would List of cities lacking bus stations qualify for inclusion? Probably not, we would say it is trivia... Carrite (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I disagree that this is trivial.  The difference between the bus station scenario and this is that Amtrak service is a politically contentious topic that gets substantial attention, especially in the cities near the top of the list where advocates push for service on the basis that their city is one of the biggest currently without service.  Random examples: "Amtrak service would put Columbus on map" ("For far too many years, we have been the doughnut hole in America's passenger-rail system. . . . Columbus currently is the largest metropolitan U.S. area without regularly scheduled passenger-rail service."), "Train dreams could help solve Az's transportation nightmare" ("The unwillingness of state leaders to kick in to maintain the northern main line of the Southern Pacific caused Phoenix to become by far the largest city in America with no Amtrak service."); "Councilor pushing rail service: Time is right to begin looking into it, he says." ("Tulsa is the fifth-largest metropolitan area in the United States without passenger rail service, following Las Vegas; Nashville; Columbus, Ohio; and Louisville, Ky."); etc.  --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * All three of those discuss a single city without Amtrak service. Noting that City X is among the largest cities without Amtrak service is not "significant coverage" needed to establish notability of a group. There's no discussion of the other cities that also lack service, for instance. Additionally, the first is a letter to the editor and the second is an op-ed. Those two sources aren't reliable. ~ RobTalk 19:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Arxiloxos has demonstrated that the subject has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, so passing WP:LISTN. Arguments that claim this to be trivia are simply based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Details about which cities should be included or whether "major" is the right word to use in the title are matters for discussion on the talk page, unrelated to whether this should be kept or deleted. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Per Rob's comment above, the provided sources do not meet LISTN. Regards, James (talk/contribs) 02:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * But here are some sources that do:
 * Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 266: Amtrak at Twenty-Five: End of the Line for Taxpayer Subsidies (Table 3 on page 5)
 * Welfare for the Rich ("Amtrak doesn’t offer service to Phoenix, Las Vegas, Columbus, Nashville, Louisville, Dayton, Tulsa, or Colorado Springs, even though each of these cities has over 500,000 residents" on page 2)
 * End of the Line: The Failure of Amtrak Reform and the Future of America's Passenger Trains (Table 4.1 on page 68)
 * 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And a few more examples of evidence that the topic of this list is relevant to, and raised in connection with, the continuing political discussions surrounding Amtrak:
 * A book, Rails Across Dixie: A History of Passenger Trains in the American South, that uses (and cites) this Wikipedia list for the purpose of supporting the author's (debatable) assertion that Southern cities are disproportionately unserved.
 * An advocacy document from the Maricopa Association of Governments that includes a list similar to this one in making an argument for the resumption of train service to Phoenix.
 * U.S. Rep. Dina Titus invokes a list of biggest cities without Amtrak in connection with her 2015 proposal for increased federal funding for intercity rail service.
 * I don't think Wikipedia's overarching policies—indeed, its basic reason for existing as a freely available encyclopedia—are served by removing a well-organized, sourceable set of data that's relevant to a matter of public discourse. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete because articles about things/situations that don't exist shouldn't exist either. Should we create a "List of wars the United States has not been involved in" article because of this logic? ~ Dissident93  (talk)  01:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We have plenty of such lists. For example "List of countries without armed forces" is a featured list, and "List of countries without rivers" was kept at AfD. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per my comment above. As a further thought, Amtrak's incorporators had to choose which trains to keep in 1970-1971, knowing that major metropolitan areas would lose service. These decisions were as much political as practical, and led to much discussion and debate in Congress. Several routes (the Lake Shore is one example) were specifically revived to address the loss of service to major cities (in that case Toledo and Cleveland). This is discussed in reliable sources, such as Craig Sanders' Amtrak in the Heartland. Sources exist and LISTN can be met (per Arxiloxos's comments), given proper cleanup and the establishment of reasonable inclusion criteria. Mackensen (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Having looked at this article in more detail, I reaffirm my "keep" above. This is an important list as discussions of the future of rail travel in the US frequently focus on whether and to what extent service is or should be provided to major metropolitan area. Unlike other lists that are sometimes proposed for deletion on the grounds that they are assembled via arbitrary criteria, the inclusion criteria here are, or readily can be made, entirely straightforward. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep list definable and notable topic of some discussion. I invite closing admin to ensure they check whether article fulfils notability criteria WRT sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Addressing definable, how does one define a "major city"? ~ RobTalk 02:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Most people writing on a topic would use a population cutoff. I am not familiar enough with the topic to suggest a number here, but suspect that somewhere such a number (or numbers) has been suggested. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * One possibility would be to take List of metropolitan areas of the United States, then take 100,000 as the minimum population. That would give you a pool of 394 metropolitan areas to work with. Mackensen (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * List of metropolitan areas of the United States is based on an actual real-world classification, which is good. But 100,000 is entirely arbitrary. The spirit of WP:ARBITRARYCAT seems to apply here; editors should not make articles/categories/anything based on some cutoff or selection criteria that we make up. 100,000 has no basis in any reliable source. ~ RobTalk 05:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There are very many instances of lists on Wikipedia where reliable sources differ in their cut-off points, as do the sources that I cited above. This simply means that we have to choose a reasonable cut-off from among the options available. If WP:ARBITRARYCAT is to be applied to a list then it needs to be done with a bit of common sense. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is one instance where not is significance, and thee are sources discussing the problem which indicate what cities should be covered; a another approach, there could be a List of Cities which previously hd Amtrak train service -- there would be no doubt which ones to include, though the list would be longer and include some rather small cities.  DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe both lists should exist; the desirability of creating the "discontinued" list does not detract from the merit of keeping this one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We can easily cover both in the same list. This is already done in this article with the notes saying if and when a former service has been discontinued. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And I would add that many of these cities might not have had an Amtrak rail service, but did have services operated by Amtrak's predecessors. I think the important thing here is a lack of rail service, not the particular operator that might operate such a service. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As noted in the nomination, I would support converting this into an article specifically on discontinued service. Alternatively, this could be partially merged to Amtrak as a new section discussing Amtrak's coverage limitations in prose. We could even do both. ~ RobTalk 05:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to me to be a viable subject for an article, given how shocking it is that cities of this size don't have a railway station. As a European I was amazed when I read it. Certainly one of those times when a list is clearly important. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I was particularly amazed by the fact that Amtrak doesn't operate a Chattanooga Choo Choo. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2016 (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.