Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cape Cod Regional Transit Authority

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. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination and cleaned up the article for good measure. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Cod Regional Transit Authority

Beyond issues of verifibility, a lack of independent WP:SOURCES and the promotional tone of the article, I'm not entirely sure this under used transit system is notable. There really isn't a whole lot you can say about it, being a Cape Cod resident and having used the bus in the past all I know is that in even in the summer ridership is abysmal and most of the Cape's population isn't even aware that CCRTA has bus service beyond paratransit. Not only that, this content of this article hasn't been updated in well over a year (juding from the edit history), and the fact that no one has done anything about it or let alone mentioned it on the talk page makes me question if this article is actually nesacarry, or even reading it in the first place. Rackabello 14:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Withdraw AfD Nomination My concerns have been fixed. Rackabello 20:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is poorly formated, and has not been cleaned up, but it is still better than having no article. First off, I don't see any real issues with verifiability which would require deletion, sources do not have to be independent in order to be reliable (indeed, in many cases, the things published by the company are more reliable in terms of facts and figures, though less reliable in terms of neutrality). Furthermore, the company has received independent press coverage here for example, so the subject satisfies notability requirements. Sources aside, and judging on merits, the public transport system of an area is a major part of a location's infrastructure. That puts such systems on par with highways, airports and railway stations in terms of significance. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. Smaller transit system, and it's perfectly fine to put the routes in there. Just because it's not dead and resting is not a reason to delete it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ordinary article about an ordinary transit system. Fg2 00:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've used it. All real transit authorities are per se notable per WP:OUTCOMES. Is already (or has been) well-sourced, but just needs clean-up. Bearian'sBooties 04:39, 2 December 2007 (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.