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 delete.  Sandstein  14:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transbay[edit]

Transbay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

WP is not a dictionary: This page fails as:

1. Dab with one or zero valid entries (most/all fail WP:PTM)
2. Article: fails WP:NEO & WP:GNG (has 1 unreliable source)
   1. WP:SIA currently they're not the same type
   2. List: undefined inclusion criteria / local scope unsourced

This is a disruptive page, that's been moved to WP namespace with a cross-wiki redirect, and history shows resiting dab cleanup/fixing. Widefox; talk 08:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a disambig page. After cleanup, entries satisfy the partial title matches guideline per its discussion on generic versus specific components of article titles. --torri²(^talk/_contribs) 21:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Torritorri which entries do not fail WP:PTM? e.g. "Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title"? All ...So which "could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context..." ? I've moved the obvious ones that fail that to the see also, but to me they all seems to fail it. I can't imagine any are referred to as just "Transbay" e.g. Transbay Tube does anybody refer to it as just "Transbay"? I really don't think so. Transbay Tower: I doubt it, and it's not like it's the Eiffel Tower which is arguably worth including in the dab Eiffel (even though nobody refers to it solely as "Eiffel"). I can imagine the transport services possibly being referred to solely as "Transbay" locally so I've left those in, even though that would be just be a local use. (ping editors User:Boleyn User:Mistakefinder User:Transponerd User:Magioladitis User:‎Bazonka User:Mercurywoodrose) Widefox; talk 09:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Delete. I'm OK with deleting if it indeed does not meet the guidelines for DAB page. However, looking at the Eiffel example mentioned above, it appears to be also a list of PTM's. In fact most DAB pages I've seen are PTMs, and that's why I thought DABs are supposed to include PTM's and so it was appropriate to create Transbay. Mistakefinder (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF applies here, which is a weak argument for non-deletion. I've now fixed Eiffel which did (incorrectly) have PTMs, but not now. Widefox; talk 19:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (Ping page's editors User:Boleyn User:Mistakefinder User:Transponerd User:Magioladitis User:‎Bazonka User:Mercurywoodrose). Widefox; talk 09:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per not a dict. the term is only used for transit across the SFBay, and this page is really just a set of partial title matches, which in this case is completely unnecessary and thus against policy. I will make sure this word is in fact at wiktionary, but the word is self explanatory.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Widefox; talk 19:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom, and other editors above. As a dab page it would only list partial name matches. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:52, 15 August 2015 (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.