Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre for Surface Transportation Technology

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. Kurykh (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Surface Transportation Technology[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has sources. Unscintillating (talk) 01:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as the sole sources offered are not what we consider substantial for independent notability and the information alone is quite guide-like which would violate our policies alone given we're not a business or group webhost; the history offers nothing else apart from what was presumably 2 people involved; in fact, searches simply found a few announcements and mentions, so even if we considered anything here significant, it's not notability-convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete whilst one can find mentions in academic sources, it gets close to no coverage in mainstream media.that's what leans me to delete. LibStar (talk) 17:06, 8 February 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.