Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hele-On Bus


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Hele-On Bus

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article appears to be advertising, non-notable bus company. Fails WP:Notguide and WP:GNG Nordic   Dragon  08:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Dragon  08:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Dragon  08:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - Technically the prices and the table of services shouldn't be there .... Remove all of that and you pretty much have an empty article that IMHO probably wouldn't ever be improved/expanded ....., Anyway can't find anything on the bus company either, Fails GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTGUIDE. Class455fan1 (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Er, did anyone bother to click on those helpful find sources links before condemning this as non-notable? Seems to have received a lot more coverage than is currently in the article.  .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.6.131 (talk) 19:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * None of those are notable or reliable sources, apart from possibly source 3. Not good enough to keep the article. Nordic   Dragon  21:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What on earth is a notable source? Wikipedia notable (in which case West Hawaii Today, the second one cited, is)? Or are you using notable as an inaccurate byword for "providing significant coverage", which all of these do? As for reliability, all three provide clear evidence of editorial oversight as required by WP:RS, so that argument is rubbish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.6.131 (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as none of this establishes solid independent notability yet. SwisterTwister   talk  07:49, 4 March 2016 (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.