Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California Shuttle Bus

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. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 03:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

California Shuttle Bus

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

A Californian bus company. Despite the references listed, I can't see anything notable about this business. Speedy was constested by claiming both the addition of references and that other similar articles exist, neither claim convinces me yet. Anyway, listing here to get consensus for either inclusion or deletion. Thanks. Dmol (talk) 03:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep this user seems to admit that the article is references. He did not participate in any discussion on the talk page whatsoever. He does not have to see anything notable about it. But several newspapers have. This includes coverage in 2003 and 2008 and more recently as well. This includes several articles that provide non-trivial coverage, this coverage focuses on the subject entirely. This is the measurement for notability. The Los Angeles Times is a verifiable and reliable sources.Thisbites (talk) 07:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourcing has improved and is sufficient to demonstrate wide impact. This was suitable for a primary sources improvement notice rather than creating a speedy for a non-obvious case just 1 hour and 14 minutes after the article was created and now escalating for AFD just 6 odd hours after creation. Public transport companies are invariably considered sufficiently notable as they create press attention for all sorts of reasons of public interest and tend to have significant social and cultural impact. Fæ (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Underwhelming sourcing as it currently stands, but a competently done new article with some sourcing going on. We should all be tagging for "more sources" more frequently and proposing for annihilation at AfD less. Carrite (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While not all references meet WP:RS, in depth/significant coverage from the reliable sources Los Angeles Times would indicate that the subject can arguably pass WP:GNG. However, at the same time, the number of hits are very low, and only two books mention the company specifically, both of which are passing mentions, therefore one can argue that the number of in depth articles are insufficient to meet the significant coverage criteria set forth in WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternatively one could say that two pages of GNews results is not unreasonable (many well established articles produce no results, the GOOGLETEST page says this is "an extremely erroneous tool for measuring notability") and indicates that there is some prospect for further improvement of sources in the near future, particularly for an article so recently created. BTW, I have a temporary link on my talk page to some LexisNexis results that I produced for Thisbites which includes a number of sources not in the GNews results. Thanks Fæ (talk) 07:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the two mentions in the LA Times, including one lengthy profile,another in the Pasadena pager (requires registration, so I didn't read that one,establish notability. Seaphoto^Talk 22:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2011 (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.