Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campus Area Bus Service


 * 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. Only user supporting nom appears to have receded 7+ days ago. Nearly a dozen users advocating to keep, with convincing arguments. (non-admin closure) Dr. Universe (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Campus Area Bus Service

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH.  Onel 5969  TT me 03:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 03:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. Unsure on the notability of this at the moment however the fleet list definitely needs to go. Ajf773 (talk) 09:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * keep, The article is discussing bus services, it's not about a company or an organisation really. And I think it already passes WP:GNG. I have further expanded the article since the nomination was made. Although the prose is adequately sourced, the only source for the tables apart from the hydrogen bus already mentioned in the prose is a wiki. If other sources can't be found for that list then I agree with Ajf773 that it should be removed. The article itself is a bit heavy on primary sources but there are also multiple others which establish notability so I vote for keep. NemesisAT (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep to avoid the process of merge to Ohio State University, where it is appropriate for campus section so as not have to go thru process of Splitting later. Djflem (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - easily passes GNG. ɱ  (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC) Expanding: this is an institution that dates back to 1923, where bus service started even before it did for the public in Columbus. There are 15 Dispatch sources, innumerous Lantern sources, and many others to be found. I cleaned up the article already, and will proceed to add to it soon.  ɱ  (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge - the article is probably useful, but the article name doesn't connect it to Ohio State. This should be corrected. Jax MN (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Assuming this discussion results in Keep, renaming it would only be necessary if there is another bus network named "Campus Area Bus Service". Caleb M1 (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong delete or Redirect/Merge to Ohio State University. The sourcing in the article is just horrible. Likely there are a few good ones in there, but most of it is just local or primary cruft references full of trivial, run of the mill information. For instance, the whole bit about one of the buses getting in an accident is 100% trivia and a WP:NOTNEWS violation. There's zero worth keeping in the article once you get rid of that and the other trivia though. At least not that couldn't just be merged or redirected to the main article about the university. I'm sure there's plenty of colleges out there with transportation networks. 99% of them don't warrant a fork article with every little trivial detail that can be crammed into it. Nor does this one. Also, the article is written like an advertisement/blog post. No one reading Wikipedia cares about the operation times or specific stop locations of specific buses. It's purely add copy. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The incident resulted in additional services added and the university buying new buses. It's not trivia, it's directly relevant to the bus service and this article. NemesisAT (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Notable accidents are relevant to transit services, airlines, and more. I moved it into the history section. I am going to add more valid content. The fact that the article is poor right now is not a valid criterion for deletion. Only notability is really relevant here, and I have proved that above. ɱ  (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with you if it was a regional transportation system. Like others have said, it's not even an official bus company though. So, this is akin to a hotel to airport shuttle service or those "buses" that transport older or disabled people who live in care homes. Given that, I don't an accident of this sort is notable. Especially considering no one died and all it says that there were "injuries." Which could mean literally anything. 17 people getting a few sprained ankles, bruised knees, or minor whiplash on a private shuttle is a non-story.


 * Re: "Only notability is really relevant here" Not really. All WP:AFDFORMAT says is that "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies." Nowhere does it say the discussion is only confined to guidelines or policies about notability though. Articles are deleted for other reasons all the time. For instance, being blatant advertising and 100% a poor article matters when it's poor because of the sourcing. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You're dead-wrong, from a lack of reading, it seems. The Deletion policy covers why an article should be deleted, specifically at WP:DEL-REASON. So unless you think the article is spam, a copyvio, or other unlikely occurrence, your choices are to find something at WP:Notability or WP:Not. What can you cite there that this article specifically violates? ɱ  (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: feel free to re-evaluate your vote. I did an extensive cleanup here, and added a solid amount of Columbus Dispatch references - it's the top regional newspaper for the Central Ohio metropolitan area. ɱ  (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's always great when people accuse me of not reading the guidelines or sources when I directly cite them. Especially when the person procced to tell me what my options are like I don't already know what they are. Classic deflection. Anyway, I'm not re-evaluating my vote. Especially based on anything you have to say or have done to the article. Also, I'll remind you that WP:AGF is a thing and your showing a serious lack of it by questioning my reading ability and not accepting how I voted by bludgeoning it. Otherwise, feel free to provide a source that says the 17 people involved in the accident had serious, life threating injuries or a policy that says time tables for specific public transport routes are perfectly in scope and relevant for a broad audience. Does Bay Area Rapid Transit have time tables? What about CBUS or CMAX which are both in Ohio? The obvious answer is no. None of them mention minor accidents that their services have been in either. Despite your claim that they are oh so important. I wonder why that could be? Must just be my lack of reading and not because its trivia. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * We're here to discuss whether this article meets criteria for deletion. So far you haven't mentioned anything that meets those criteria. I am acting civilly, just pointing out that you missed the deletion policy, prominently linked from the page you linked me. I am not sure why you're bringing up the accident, as I haven't defended that. I am also not sure why you are bringing up timetables, this article doesn't have any. It does, however, mention service hours, something that is normal, and is present in Ohio transit and BART articles. ɱ  (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And part of that discussion is if the sources (and therefore the article) only contain trivial information that is out of the scope of Wikipedia. 100% an article and sources that only contain trivial information doesn't meet the criteria of notability or inclusion in Wikipedia. Especially when there is a perfectly reasonable merge target that can be used instead of just deleting the information. All of which I'm sure you know already and are just ignoring, because you rather campaign for the article being kept whatever the facts on the ground are. Also, the article has a table of the running times of buses and where they start and stop. Last time I checked, a timetable is a schedule of transportation routes. Which is exactly what that is. I don't feel like arguing semantics though.


 * That said, the Ohio transit and BART articles don't (from what I can tell) say what times the services run from, to, Etc. Etc. Therefore, they don't contain timetables or schedules. Sure, the BART article says which stops don't run on weekends, but it's questionable that the information is needed and it's completely different then listing specific route times. That said, I think it's perfectly fine to list what BART routes don't run on weekends. As it's an article about a regional transportation system that covers multiple major cities, 120 miles, and has 50 stations. So it's completely different in scope then some random inter-campus 5 route system that's only meant to serve a specific, extremely small set of the larger Columbus, Ohio population. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Lol, you're the one who brought up BART in the first place, and I assume you don't take public transit? Because a timetable looks like this on the right. This CABS article doesn't have anything remotely like this, sorry. ɱ  (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, because the articles don't timetables and this one does. Which was exactly my point. Your just proving it. Your side of this whole discussion seems to be either extremely circular reasoning or that I just don't know what I'm talking about. The last time I checked, "keep because people who are voting delete haven't read up on it and don't know anything" isn't a valid argument. Your not even arguing for or against anything. Do you have anything else that's actually meaningful to the discussion or is that it? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Where is this article's timetable?!?!? Please screenshot for me anything remotely resembling the image I posted above. This is getting ridiculous. ɱ  (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Uuuhhh, the table in the routes section that has the start and stop times? A time table is just a schedule. It doesn't have to be a 1/1 exact replica of the photo you posted to be one either. Otherwise, your being way over obtuse about it. Really, you can call it whatever you want, but it doesn't negate the fact that having the times specific times and locations of stops is trivial information. Continuing arguing over the meaning of words instead of proving otherwise though. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I really can't argue with you if you think a list of services with service hours is a "timetable". You really don't take transit, do you? Look up definitions of timetables please. And this table present in the article is in nearly all transit agency articles, including BART and COTA. The fact that you're attacking a standard element of transit articles is ludicrous. ɱ  (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Totally the circular, deflective, defensive response I expected. Your lack of corium or evidence in this discussion should be enough evidence to anyone reading this that the article isn't notable or worth keeping. Personally, I'm totally fine with it being merged. Apparently your not open to alternatives to deletion though. Which is fine, but I have better things to do then argue about the meaning of basic words that everyone knows the definition of or be told I shouldn't have an opinion because I don't ride public transit. "laughing emoji." --Adamant1 (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, because as someone who had barely touched the article before the AfD, my discussion tactics are deletion criteria. (What?) Also, I wouldn't expect someone who doesn't take public transit to really understand timetables, as they probably have never used them. A leaflet that explains each departure and arrival time for a transit service is a timetable, something that is too trivial for Wikipedia. Service hours (a.k.a. hours of operation) are, on the other hand, allowed and encouraged in transit articles, and you'll find them for every transit service, unlike timetables. ɱ (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Your first comment said "No one reading Wikipedia cares about..." who are you to speak for what Wikipedians care about? Public transport is not trivial. This article does not contain only "trivial information". There are plenty of sources. NemesisAT (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I speak for what people reading Wikipedia care about when it comes to citing the guidelines about what's considered trivial and to local for the general audience of Wikipedia readers. Which is what I, and other people, do in AfDs all the time. I'm not what your issue is with that. People say the content in articles is trivial and not in the scope of a general audience all the time. Also, when did I say the article only contained trivial information? If that was what I thought I wouldn't have suggested a merge instead of just deleting the article outright. It's obvious some of the content is trivial and I don't think mischaracterizing my opinion (instead of just dealing with it) is really fair. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I may have misread your comment on the "only trivial information" part, but this line "So it's completely different in scope then some random inter-campus 5 route system that's only meant to serve a specific, extremely small set of the larger Columbus, Ohio population" does seem to suggest that the service is not significant enough to be included on Wikipedia. The size of a service is irrelevant, its whether adequate sourcing can be found that matters. There is adequate sourcing here. NemesisAT (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, I don't really care if it's mentioned in the main university article. It's an interesting bit of trivia related to the university. Just not substantive enough to warrant an article IMO. Especially considering the poor sourcing. How is the size of the service irrelevant? From what I can tell there are no specific guidelines for public transportation. Which would mean we are forced to use either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Both require "Significant coverage" and your just not going to get that out of a small, local, inter-campus transportation service. You hardly do for regional ones in a lot of places.
 * There is already significant coverage from multiple newspapers, and at over 90,000 bytes the university article is already rather long so it makes sense to keep this article separate. NemesisAT (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Looking through the subject, it appears to be at least a marginally notable, minor bus operator. It may be the case that there's not too much to be said about the operator. I am unconvinced that the table of routes in the "Routes" section amounts to a timetable. However, I would suggest trimming the description of the service hours; for example it may suffice to say that the route runs during the daytime 7 days a week rather than 5am-midnight on weekdays, 8am-8pm on weekends. The fleet listing may not have been encyclopedic, but that has now been removed. On a cursory glance, I'm seeing enough news sources on newspapers.com and ProQuest (as well as sources on the article) to prove this isn't just a van operation someone decided to run one day. Epicgenius (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment For the people voting keep that think the sourcing is adequate here's a small summary of what we have on hand. In the article and in concern to the sourcing. I'd love to see a meaningful response beyond "you shouldn't have an opinion because you don't ride public transport." I'll remind people that the guidelines are clear there has to be in-depth, direct coverage of the topic in the references and that they can't be primary sources.


 * In the article we have trivial, semi-advertish information like them having a pickup and dropoff service for disabled students (which is through a van company that's not connected to the campus BTW) and that routes can be planned through the Pivot app. I'm about 100% sure both qualify as WP:MILL, routine coverage. It's also like 4 extremely trivial sources right there. Especially if the metric is WP:NORG. There's also the part about the minor accident that no one got seriously injured in. That's another trivial source. When I asked our colleague Ɱ what in the article they thought wasn't along those WP:MILL routine lines the only response I got was that I don't ride public transport. So I shouldn't have an opinion about it.


 * Sourcing wise, there's the 5 references about WP:MILL content that I already mentioned. There's 7 references to The Lantern that aren't usable for this because they are primary. There's "Identifying Homogeneous Periods in Bus Route Origin-Destination Passenger Flow Patterns from Automatic Passenger Counter Data." Which doesn't discuss the bus system directly or in-depth. There's the Columbus Dispatch article about cleaner buses. According to the article their purchasing five all-electric buses. How is that not WP:MILL or routine? There's "New Ohio State University Diesel-electric Powered Hybrid Buses Delivered by GILLIG LLC Roll Out with Vanner Hybrid Beltless Alternators." Which is a company press release. How many sources is that out of the total? I think 14 out of probably like 17. Oh yeah, and three citations to a campus map. Which no one is going to argue is usable for notability. So seriously, what are we left with and what I am missing in that analysis? Right off the top 10 out of like 15 citations are primary and 3 or 4 only mention this in passing. How does that equate to a well sourced article that passes WP:GNG? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless you do a row-by-row analysis of every source, I can't understand these generalizations and partial statements. Please do a proper source analysis or don't at all. ɱ  (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm good. My guess is that if I did you'd just come up with some other way to move the goal post and ignore counter evidence like you've already been doing to dismiss everything I've said. I doubt you'd be any less dismissive if I just change the formatting of my comment. Like putting 10 primary sources row-by-row is somehow magically more conviencing then just saying in a sentence that they are primary anyway. Anyone can easily verify that The Lantern is a primary source and count how many times its used in the article. I'm not doing a row-by-row listing of it just because you don't feel like putting in the extremely small amount of effort it would take you to do some pretty basic math while looking at the reference section of the article to disprove what I said if you think its wrong. Its on the people who think the article should be keep to provide solid evidence why anyway. Not the other way around. So I've already done way more then I'm obligated to. I'm erfectly fine with leaving the evidence ad it stands and giving other people the chance to weigh in Both of us have already made our opinions pretty clear. Adamant1 (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice defensive and circular reasoning. If you can't even be bothered to organize your thoughts in a critique, your argument is worthless. ɱ  (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And for the record, The Lantern is an independent student-run organization with thorough sourcing and reporting, and an editorial board. It receives OSU funding only for its video/television programming. You are confusing wp:primary sources with wp:independent sources. The Lantern reports news, making it a secondary source, not primary. And it is independent to the university, making it an independent source when reporting on the university bus system. ɱ  (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, because it's defensive and circular to expect to people to read what I wrote and do their own research. Sure.


 * The Lantern is a "laboratory paper that is put together daily by students, most of whom contribute through the Lantern practicum class, and are not paid." One of the criteria WP:IDPRIMARY gives to identify if a source is primary is if it is self published or not. It should be pretty obvious that a news paper put out by students as part of a university course/class assignment is self published.


 * Also, WP:PRIMARY says "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." Ask yourself, would students of a university be close to a bus system ran by that university? Realistically, what are the chances that they have direct experiences of the bus system? My guess is pretty good. It should go without saying that university students would have a vested interest in the existence of their universities bus system. Just as they would the university cafeteria, gym, or anything else provided by the university for the benefit of their students.


 * I'll also add that anything written by a student, for instance a master thesis, that hasn't been published in a third party journey that has no connection to the university is not usable for establishing notability. Even in cases where it has been reviewed by the universities academic board. A student paper is no different.


 * Would all that be clearer if I put it in a table? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just like the journalist who writes an article for a paper isn't the same person who prints the paper, manages the website, proofreads the article, etc, a student writing for the Lantern is not publishing it themselves. In response to the question asked at the top of WP:USESPS, the author and publisher are not the same person. I disagree that this source counts as "self-published". NemesisAT (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the reviewers at the Associated Press reviewing an article written by an established journalist before they print it is in no way comparable to a random university professor looking looking at a students paper as part of a writing assignment. I could really care less who the admins for either of their websites are. That wasn't my point, and this has nothing to do with random website admins. Also, in this case the authors and the publishers are "students." So, yes they are the same thing. Unless you can clearly attribute every article by The Lantern to specific students and provide evidence none of them had anything to do with the printing of the newspaper. I highly doubt that's the case though since it's printed out of a class room as part of journalism assignments. Which means there aren't separate departments in different locations, or the organizational separation needed to say the writing printing have nothing to do with each other. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't know whether the person who publishes the work is the same student as the one who wrote it. Just as we don't know if articles in newspapers are proofread or not. You're making assumptions. You're also assuming that journalists writing for non-student newspapers have their work proofread and checked which, at least for the newspapers in my area, seems unlikely given the factual errors and typos that sometimes get published. NemesisAT (talk) 22:18
 * Also, this article is about a bus service. Not a living person, or a controversial issue, it's a bus service so I don't see the need to be so strict on sourcing. There is plenty of it. NemesisAT (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We assume they are though. The same as we do with any other source that says it publishes it's own work as a group without evidence that they do otherwise. That's why blogs are not valid sources. It doesn't ultimate who pushes the "post" button. My personal blog isn't suddenly independent if I have my mom post the latest story I wrote one day instead of doing it myself. Same as my self published zine doesn't suddenly become independent if I have a random employee at my local Office Depot send it through the printer. Those aren't what makes something independent.


 * With news journalists though, there is an assumption of independence. Not just because of who they are writing for or who prints their work, but because there is an assumption of independence and safe guards in journalism world that doesn't exists for your average college newspaper. I'd agree that's not 100% solid though. Which is why Wikipedia generally stays away from being a news source, because breaking stories, intentional or not, tend to have a lot of errors. Especially when their local ones. So, obviously context and the subject of the particular Wikipedia article we are reviewing at the time matters.


 * RE "this article is not about a living person, or a controversial issue." Sure, but neither are 99% of the other AfDs or articles out there. It doesn't we should soften our standards for and make exceptions for any of them though. Otherwise, you could use the same logic to justify keeping an article on any local zoo or museum out there that a random 7th grader wrote a story about visit as part of a school assignment, because "hey it's not like we know 100% that the Associated Press fully vets everything they print right? And why be so hard about it anyway. My 7th grader just wants her paper cited on Wikipedia. Give her a break man! It's not like the zoo is Controversial." --Adamant1 (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * BTW, just so we are 100% clear, if the student newspaper was an independent, separate student organization within the university that allowed "students" to write articles for it then I'd probably be treating them differently. It's not though. It's a paper put out by a journalism class that is being worked on specifically by journalism majors as part of class assignments. My issue isn't with "student journalism", it's with student journalism that is dependent on and comes out of a specific class and assigned work. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, shifting goalpoasts. ɱ  (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * This comment shows such a lack of depth of understanding of journalism, universities, and public transportation. I'm gonna have to tear this apart line by line when I'm home. ɱ  (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Feel free. Your whole argument since the start of this has been that anyone who disagrees with you is just ignorant about the subject. Which so far has meant dismissing everything off hand without actually adding anything cogent to the discussion. If you think the point in this is just "tearing other people's points apart", which is an extremely bad faithed and WP:BATTLEGROUND way to engage people, then I'm not expecting any different. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Have you looked at the About Us and Contact Us pages? You made many false assumptions, (a) that only "random university professors" are reviewing the works, when there is actually a cohesive team of 23 editors, not to mention fact-checkers and copyeditors. Unlike many student newspapers, like the one I experienced working for, the advisor (officially the director of student media) is actually quite experienced - he had written for newspapers for over 20 years, and prominent ones - the Columbus Dispatch and Cincinnati Enquirer. And (b) that students somehow are publishing their own content when this is a printed newspaper, published by the School of Communication at The Ohio State University. You really are wrong about every point you make, just own up to it. ɱ (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sources speaking about themselves isn't a determinant of their reliability. So, it doesn't really matter what they say about themselves on their website.


 * I will say though, that your supposedly cohesive team is still just journalism students that "change after completion of two academic semesters." So, clearly they are just involved in the paper because of their journalism related academic pursuits like I said. Again, 23 people in a class working together as part of an assignment does mean they are a usable source in an AfD discussion. You've provided zero evidence to show I am wrong about that either. If anything, your evidence that they are a revolving staff of journalism students just confirms that I'm right.


 * On the fact cheekers and copyeditors, do you have a third party references saying they have them and listing who exactly those people are? Because "fact checker" is not listed on either page. Or are we suppose to just take your word that they are reputable third parties and not just other journalism students? --Adamant1 (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You're literally a wikilawyer and a troll; I'm stopping pandering to your ridiculous ideas. It's a fucking newspaper, with a highly-experienced director, countless reporters, and a huge editorial team. What more can you want? I'm not going down this rabbit hole any further. Submit a query at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard if you want to continue your doubts, over the voices of multiple seasoned Wikipedia editors. ɱ  (talk) 00:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry your so triggered by being wrong. Feel free to take it up as more "trolling," but just looking at the editor-in-chief and managing editor from the contact page you provided a link to they are both journalism students. What I want is an editor-in-chief and managing editor that aren't students and won't just be new ones when the semester is over. I want people at the top that have prior experience in the field of journalism. I don't think that's a ridiculous standard to consider a source reliable by either. I mean, even the copy chief is a student for Christ sake. None of them have the career experience to be reputable, legitimate sources of news. Which is why they do special interest puff pieces like the thing about the bus system getting three new energy efficient vehicles. They aren't even at the point in their careers where a local outlet would let them report on something as minor as a car accident for them though.


 * Sure, the director of student media is a teacher, but ultimately, so what? We know it's a class project. Remember, your the one that brought up their supposed journalistic acumen. It's hilarious your calling me a troll just for pointing out they don't have any. Your taking this way to personal. It's perfectly OK to be wrong sometimes. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Take it to Reliable Sources Noticeboard. You don't dictate reliable source standards. ɱ  (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No. It's not my standard. Really, you should since your the saying the source should be used and is reputable. Like I said, it's on the keep voters to make a coherent keep argument, not the other way around. You think it's a reliable source, cool. Then prove it. You've done a horrible job at it so far though. I could really care less as long as you provide some actual evidence that it's reputable. Instead of just throwing a fit and insulting me. Which just looks bad on you and keeping this compared to making a coherent, evidence based argument.


 * Personally, I'm fine if The Lantern is used once or twice in an article to confirm basic information. That doesn't mean it's a valid source for notability though. Nothing says it is and the guidelines are pretty clear the standards are different for AfDs then they are for article content. It's not my problem that you disagree with that and can't muster up the proof that would back up your claims that it's an acceptable source. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Take it to Reliable Sources Noticeboard. You alone don't dictate reliable source standards as you're trying to here. ɱ  (talk) 01:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * How exactly am I dicting anything by giving my opinion? I've been more then clear that I want people to do their own research of the sources. While your the one accusing people of trolling and telling them what to do. So, if anything your the one trying to dictate things. Otherwise, you could have ended the discussion about 15 posts back after I brought up bludging. Anyway, I thought you were going to "tear up" what I said. Telling me it to take it the relaible sources noticeboard is a really weak way to do it. Is name calling, swearing, and telling people to take things to noticeboards really all you have? If so, that's pretty muh...For all the bluster I really expected more. BTW, I'm really looking forward to using my 7th graders essay about our local zoo in a Wikipedia article and then telling anyone who thinks its a crap source to take it up at the reliable noticeboard. Fun times...Fun times. I'm sure you'll totally have my back about it to. Adamant1 (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, everyone disagrees with you on The Lanterns reliability. If you disagree, fine. If you want to do anything about it, take it to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. ɱ'  (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, two people disagree with me and they aren't the only ones involved in the AfD. I've also had several people think me for my side the discussion. In no way is that everyone disagring with me. Not that I'd care if they did because AfDs are more about the strengh of the arguements being made. Not on who is better at calling people trolls or who tells the other side what to do more. Plus, I'm perfectly fine with being disagreed with. Anyway, I'm done with the discussion. Other people should have a chance to participate. I'd like to know what people who aren't going to just accuse me of trolling think of the sources. and my analysis of them. Adamant1 (talk) 03:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool dude. Four misspellings there. If you really thought the source was bad and actually wanted it removed as a reliable source, you'd do as I said four times and bring up a dispute, not just complain against your own incredible standards far beyond what's at WP:RS. ɱ  (talk) 03:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Phone editing while buying groceries tends to do that. Really based, reasonable criticism though. Seriously, lets give this a rest and let other people have a chance to participate in the AfD discussion. Adamant1 (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. After reviewing the article which has been reworked and some of the comments here, I am satisfied this meets the notability requirements. Ajf773 (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep meets NCORP by virtue of the sustained coverage it received in The Columbus Dispatch, a regional newspaper with high circulation. Mottezen (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as sourced, informative article meets corporation topic requirements. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - multiple citations to the Dispatch, the state's paper of record, along with being the subject of a study published in a respected peer reviewed journal is a slam dunk pass for NORG.  174.212.227.200 (talk) 07:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.