Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shuttle-UM

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shuttle-UM[edit]

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

College bus service - no indication of notability, no independent sources. Nothing of significance found on google. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There does appear to have been some news coverage of this at local level ([1] and [2] are fairly in-depth), and the Washington Post has also covered it here. Whether that's enough for WP:GNG is open to interpretation. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Even though the article has only existed for two days, its quality and content are similar to that of other bus articles in the DC area. Some independent sources have been added, and a little notability has been established. JamaUtil (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This doesn't meet the GNG of significant coverage (Media mentions are trivial). If other bus articles are like this, they should also be removed. (This information is better placed on Wikitravel). Clovis Sangrail (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Website states that "Shuttle-UM is one of the nation’s largest University transit services. With a fleet of over 60 vehicles" That makes it larger than many municipal transit systems. Give it a chance. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of non-trivial coverage in Highbeam Research, and enough to clear notability. Will add some later. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Six reliable sources added from Highbeam Research. I believe that notability has been cleared. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm a former student at the University, so my opinion is biased, but I think with the addition of the sources mentioned, that the page meets notability criteria. Amit ► 14:07, 14 November 2010 (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.