Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defense Travel System

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) CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Defense Travel System[edit]

[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)

This definitely exists, but is it notable? Been tagged since 2010, with discussions on the talk page since 2008. Natg 19 (talk) 07:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Business, Software, and United States of America. Natg 19 (talk) 07:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO for a reservation/booking software used by the military. Coverage is simply where to find the site, on other military websites. Oaktree b (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion isn't cleanup, just needs a typical copyedit. Widefox; talk 14:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Didn't take long to find secondary sources:[1], [2], [3]. PianoDan (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of these sources provide SIGCOV of this system, and are more about potential replacements, which seem to have been canceled. Natg 19 (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree those three sources are about (not) replacing it, but there's more sources... Widefox; talk 14:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep many sources exist easily passing WP:GNG. e.g. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], (primary) [9], (replacement) [10] (replacement, primary) [11], (replacement) [12] system details here [13]. Anything more than a quick search would find better ones. Widefox; talk 14:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unlikely to be fixed. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here another source from 17 years ago in the Washington Post. It may be notably bad, but it's notable. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:49, 13 February 2024 (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.