Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RIT Ambulance (2nd nomination)


 * 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 redirect‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Rochester Institute of Technology. ✗ plicit  23:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

RIT Ambulance
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article does not meet the notability guideline. It is largely unsourced and otherwise relies excessively on primary sources. Contributors to the article over the years have added entirely unsourced material which appear to infringe WP:NOR. A previous AfC was opened in 2007 which kept the article. GuardianH (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, does not have sufficient reliable sources for support. Merging into Rochester Institute of Technology is also possible but already has coverage there which looks sufficient too. - Indefensible (talk) 01:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Medicine,  and New York.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Redirect to Rochester_Institute_of_Technology. I found a two-page local newspaper article about the service, but otherwise just bare mentions. Insufficient sources to support notability for stand-alone article but the redirect may be useful to readers. Schazjmd   (talk)  15:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Schazjmd makes sense too. - Indefensible (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Schazjmd. Good source, hopefully we can make use of it. (Got a little pang looking at the 2007 discussion and being reminded how much more constructive and practical AfD discussions sometimes were, even in 2007. What a long rough slide it's been.) -- Visviva (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2023 (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.