Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MBTA Subway


 * 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. The one thing that's clear is that there's no consensus to delete this title completely. Some people are arguing it should be merged back into one or more parent articles, others are arguing it should be kepts as is. Since none of these alternatives require an admin to carry out, the conversation can (and should) continue at Talk:MBTA Subway. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

MBTA Subway

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Duplicates existing work. Anmccaff (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Doesn't need an AFD to be changed back to a redirect. --NE2 15:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Move: historical content to History of the MBTA Subway, or an expanded subsection of History of the MBTA; infobox and some general description to the existing section of Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. There's a lot of potential to have an article that traces the interconnected history of the MBTA subway system. Such events as the Riverbank Subway (which would have probably been a branch of what is now the Red Line, but was spurned for what is now part of the Green Line), and the 1945-47 Coolidge Commission report that's dictated almost every expansion since 1952, aren't well covered by existing articles. That's where some of the information that's been moved to this article could do the most good. However, the remaining parts duplicate information that's fine to keep on the MBTA article. Precisely because of its history, the MBTA subway doesn't have a strong identity separate from the operating company (compare to New York City Subway and Washington Metro, which have a strong identity independent from MTA and WMATA), so there's no need to have a separate article about that identity. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, there are parts and pieces worth saving. The New York Subways -really Manhattan subways, if you get down to it - were born out of a five-way conflict between the city, the streetcars, the elevateds, electrified steam roads, and, even in the earliest days, buses.  Boston, even back in Mr. BERy's day, had an integrated metropolitan system, with many lines switching from surface to elevated to below ground as circumstances required.  The is no "Boston Subway" in the sense that this article is using it.  Anmccaff (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Boston Subway" may be entirely colloquial, but MBTA Rapid Transit is the technical grouping of a system of BRT, light rail, and heavy rail that comprise the Boston subway, as is always noted in MBTA financial reports. As such, an article centered around this system will help outside users learn about Boston's rapid transit options without having to read a history of the state agency and its extensive operations in an article that focused widely on matters unrelated to the subway operations  Tylr00 (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)tylr00


 * I found that this page would be useful as it separates the identity of a segment of the MBTA's operations, as does MBTA Bus. When looking at the previous version of the MBTA page, the previous section related to the subway was trite, lacking in unified detail that is shown on the individual line's pages. Many Bostonians use "the T" as a synonym to the subway segment of the MBTA, and don't take buses or commuter rail trains. Additionally, tourists rarely use buses, but frequently use the T. Tylr00 (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Tylr00


 * Merge this article into the main article and reverting it back to a redirect. At most, this could be an expanded version of the #subway section of the MBTA article and linked to from there. - Denimadept (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Example from the Spanish article''
 * The reason I created this page was because the MBTA mainpage reads like a novel about a state agency, not specific around rapid transit in Boston. However, the Spanish version of MBTA, which I am uncertain how to direct to using Wikicoding, can be found here https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_de_Boston, has a simple, clean chart that I think would be great on either the MBTA page or MBTA Subway page (aka the "survivor" page for Boston rapid transit).  Any thoughts?  Tylr00 (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)Tylr00
 * The Spanish article is not very well written - I wouldn't give that as the best example. It conflates the subway with the MBTA as a whole, largely ignoring bus, ferry, commuter rail etc. However, if this article is merged back into the main MBTA article, such a chart may be appropriate.
 * you can link to other articles on other wikis like  es:Metro de Boston  while will render as es:Metro de Boston. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Move and Merge, as suggested above. I have been editing articles about Boston transportation for years, and have many articles on my watchlist. I was rather astonished to discover this article recently, which is an indication of how disconnected it is from the other articles. It does contain some nonduplicated content and references that are worth preserving, by moving them to more appropriate articles. But as has been noted above, the various MBTA rapid transit lines are quite different from each other, and are already handled by the existing articles on each line. The duplicate content here adds little value, and keeping it redundantly updated in parallel with the main articles requires ongoing effort that would be better exerted elsewhere. Reify-tech (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you look at the edit history you will see that this topic was a redirect before 2016-08-25T17:54:12. Unscintillating (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep or Speedy keep Nomination does not cite a WP:DEL-REASON.  This AfD could also be speedy closed as "wrong forum" under our WP:Deletion policy, with the discussion moved to the talk page of the article.  Redirect has existed since 2007.  The main article is currently tagged as "may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding or removing subheadings."  Unscintillating (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh? "Duplicates existing work" sounds like a pretty clear statement of a deletion reason to me. Why does the fact that this was previously a redirect make any difference in the matter? Wrong forum says nothing about that. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a deletion forum. If you want a central discussion forum for editorial/content decisions including redirect/merge/standalone, then go about getting it created, as I've heard that it has already been approved.  As per current WP:Deletion policy, The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum.
 * There is nothing in deletion policy that covers where the extension of the red line should be covered. You've not stated a WP:DEL-REASON, and you've not stated WP:IAR.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You're misrepresenting how AfD works, and ignoring the arguments that have been made above. Deletion process discusses a variety of available outcomes, including moving and merging. This is not a content dispute whatsoever; please stop misrepresenting it as such. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * My assertions are backed up by WP:Editing policy and WP:Deletion policy. I have also explained my Keep !vote, making sound arguments, and your claim that I've ignored the above discussion is a gratuitous proof by assertion.
 * You were advised when you posted at this discussion forum that "discussion guidelines are available":


 * {| style="background:#DDFFFF"




 * How to contribute

AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. Reasonable editors will often disagree, but valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive.
 * }
 * I suggest you also look at WP:BEFORE A1, which mentions "valid grounds for deletion", which you remain either unwilling or unable to cite. Unscintillating (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further consensus - 10 days without relist. Nordic  Nightfury  12:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The MBTA as an agency and the subway system are each notable enough to deserve their own pages.  This is handled appropriately for other cities' transit systems (for example, Dallas Area Rapid Transit and DART Light Rail) and even elsewhere for the MBTA's commuter rail division (see Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority and MBTA Commuter Rail).  I would recommend keeping this, and adding a "main article" link from the "subway" section of the MBTA page to this page, similar to how the "commuter rail" section has a main article link to MBTA Commuter Rail.  Having a separate article is useful for people who are looking for information on the subway specifically, and not the MBTA or its history in general. Shelbystripes (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic   Nightfury  12:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have articles about the individual lines that make up this subway system (see Red Line (MBTA), Orange Line (MBTA), Blue Line (MBTA)). In fact, we have articles about the individual subway stations (see links in List of MBTA subway stations). I'm not sure why the individual components of the system are considered notable enough for an article, yet the overall system is not. If for some reason the consensus is not to keep, the article should be redirected to Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority instead of being deleted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep It's the oldest subway system in North America as well as one of the largest, serving a major city. It clearly satisfies WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Shelbystripes and Metropolitan90's arguments - we have articles on MBTA Commuter Rail, MBTA Bus, and MBTA Boat, but we're trying to delete the one about the MBTA subway? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty &#124; Averted crashes 15:21, 8 September 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.