Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All-four (public transport)

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All-four (public transport)

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

This is a rather old article, and covers what could be an interesting concept, but the article has never been sourced, and a search through Google Scholar does not show any academic study using the "all-four" terminology. All references to the term that I found using Google are to Wikipedia or its mirrors. The article has been tagged as being unreferenced and as possible original research for ten years and the issue hasn't been resolved. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suspect this is WP:MADEUP. A quick search of several NYC Subway history sites fails to find any mention of this term. Yes, the BMT had all 4 of the transport modes listed, and did try to treat them as complimentary rather than competitive, but the rest, including the name, is original research at best. – Train2104 (t • c) 13:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Never heard of this before, if there is proof that can corroborate this information as true it'd be best to integrate it into the existing BMT article. —Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs · email) 13:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good faith, but fails verifiability. oknazevad (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge to Brooklyn–Manhattan Transit Corporation, per User:Train2104, User:Imdanumber1 and oknazevad. If this is a genuine term used within the mass transit industry, I'm not familiar with it. Or if I've heard it before, I forgot about it. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This may have been created in good faith, but it is never really used in any type of terminology, even jargon. Google search reveals nothing verifying this topic's notability, per above. epicgenius (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2017 (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.