Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antelope Valley 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.

Antelope Valley Transit Authority

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Page is basically pure WP:PROMO with zero sources. The main contributor is a user who clearly works for the company. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. The article does have the problems mentioned, but a quick check shows that there is notability here. The nominator is reminded that AfD is not for cleanup, and that that alternatives to deletion should be considered before nomination - WP:BEFORE does not appear to have been followed here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keepyes it looks like enough to meet GNG. It's a transit authority partly in or near LA county -- where admittedly, public transit isn't too high on the list of priorities. But it serves a market of approximately a half a million and the Gnews results are adequate. Yes, there's been a lot of COI editing looks like, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see it as WP:PROMO. Are they trying to sell you a two-dollar bus ride? Yes, maybe it was written by someone close to the organization, but they are not selling a product that is any different that the This transit agency is not more or less notable than the hundreds of other transit articles in WP. Keep based on WP:NOTPAPER. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs better sourcing. Only reference listed is the official website, but there are others available, for instance this one on transit strikes, this one on their bus fleet, or this general profile from the California Transit Association.PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No less notable than the other Southern Californian transit authorities that have the same number or less routes than this. Needs cleanup to sound less like an advertisement of course and could use more info including what exactly those "13 local transit routes" are, etc.. in addition to info on the sources found in the above comments. - Vanstrat ⁽⁽🗼⁾⁾ 16:38, 1 November 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.