Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miles In Transit

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎

This AFD was closed by the nominator, TheWhole151. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miles In Transit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails to meet notability guidelines, with sources referenced in the article having little relation to the content of the article. Parts of the article appear to be original research, such as current employment, which are not mentioned in attached sources.

Miles' YouTube channel is not unique to the platform, as there are a plethora of creators on YouTube who make similar content regarding traveling by public transportation, and are not included on Wikipedia. TheWhole151 (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Internet, Transportation, and Massachusetts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — the vast majority of other transit creators were at least somewhat inspired by Miles, and he’s been doing it for 10+ years. Also, why on earth is original research bad?!

Best, MTATransitFan^Chat! 22:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources from the original article mentioned that his work would have inspired the work of others. Article fails notability from WP:CREATIVE for this reason, with no source picking up this "inspiration" you mention. Few larger creators are on Wikipedia, e.g. Geoff Marshall in this field, with notability from other accomplishments outside of just having a YouTube channel. The amount of time he has been on the platform (~5 years) plays no role into notability. Original research is also prohibited by WP:NOR, and as mentioned, the article included statements and claims not backed up by the provided sources. TheWhole151 (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: None of the arguments for deletion are factually correct. Ten of the sources are substantial independent coverage about Taylor and his productions; that's a clear pass of WP:NBASIC. There's only one unsourced paragraph, but it would be easy to cite from the existing sources. The argument that his employment is uncited is incorrect: As of 2024, Taylor works for the MBTA as a transit service planner is in fact discussed in the given source: "My job as a service planner [for the MBTA] is like my dream job." Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bart Reed 51 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC) — Bart Reed 51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep per Pi.1415926535. I was initially skeptical as to the quantity of secondary sources but there are far more than I initially would have thought. Emma Lexi Triphora (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There is significant coverage of the subject in several major news publications (Boston Globe, Washington Post, Philadelphia Inquirer) but it isn't for a singular event. Clearly meets GNG. Sounder Bruce 03:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per SounderBruce. Requester should review Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance and not delete citations while tagging before bringing any future articles for deletion. --Michael Greiner 03:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, per Pi.1415926535 and SounderBruce. SJ Morg (talk) 07:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Whether or not there are individual unsourced statements in the article does not factor into the overall notability of the subject, which is where this discussion should really be focused. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 11:03, 5 January 2025 (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.