Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faresaver


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Faresaver

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A non-notable small local company without significant secondary coverage beyond the local paper. Fails WP:GNG. Charles (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (gab)  @ 22:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (lecture)  @ 22:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep although does need additional cites Mo7838 (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - It needs better sourcing but that can be fixed anyday . – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  01:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * .....someday.....never? The article is over a year old and shows no indication of meeting WP:CORP or WP:GNG.Charles (talk) 09:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added a few sources but my google search results are shite as per usual. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  15:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ref 1 neither mentions Faresaver nor supports the text it follows. The others only mention the company in passing or are news stories which quote members of the company. None of this meets the requirements for in depth coverage set out in WP:CORPDEPTH. If this article had gone through the Articles for Creation process it would have failed. Those who want to keep it need to come up with some evidence instead of just WP:ILIKEIT.Charles (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. I've supplied a couple of refs which are perfectly fine, and 2. This isn't a case of "I Like it", It's a case of making the effort to source the article which btw you haven't even attempted. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  22:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You do not know if I have looked for sources. (I have). The point you are still missing is that the sources given do not establish notability per WP:CORPDEPTH.Charles (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Remove article has always been patchy, ambiguous, out of date (virtually impossible to keep up to date) and unverifiable something i have argued about for a long time with the original author.
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  23:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - There's plenty of time to improve it, and it appears that there is significant coverage, it just hasn't made its way into the article as yet. Jacona (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What significant coverage? Please enlighten us.Charles (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  03:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * DElete -- Is a small local bus operator notable enough to need an article? I have considerable doubts about that.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Quite alot of small bus operators here have articles and all are notable. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  16:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Struck since this is sadly gonna turn into a silly argument i think.
 * Having articles does not prove they are notable. Faresaver has an article without any evidence of notability. Each case has to be looked at depending on sources.Charles (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

– Davey 2010 •  (talk)  21:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We keep hearing assertions of notability but zero evidence is produced.Charles (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete One of the "references" don't mention the company, one is by it, one has nothing in the way of signficant coverage, the fourth has little. It shouldn't take more than a passing familiarity with our policies to identify which is which.  I wasn't able to find more, but I'm happy to investigate whatever little is found. --j⚛e deckertalk 03:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Obvious fail to GNG.Forbidden User (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete since significant coverage has not been forthcoming. If someone wants to take it on as a project they can ask for Userfication, or just copy it to their own computer now and bring it back when enough reliable sources with significant coverage have been added so that it qualifies under WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2014 (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.