Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint John Transit


 * 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The result was Keep, non admin closure as nominator has withdrawn and unaminous keep. Davewild 08:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Saint John Transit

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable bus company - fails to assert notability of any kind. The Islander 00:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep and clean up - it's notability has improved a little since I nominated this (though it still reads like an advert), and it's clear now that nominating this wasn't the right thing to do. I therefore retract my nomination, and I would close this, but I'm afraid I don't know how. Appologies for any trouble caused. The Islander 18:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and clean up. It's a public transit agency, carries with it some notability on precedent.  Plenty of agencies that do this. Yes, I know WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 00:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, cleanup - Reads as spam, but notable enough. --H| H irohisat  Talk 01:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up it is notable enough, but reads like spam. Oysterguitarist 03:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep It's notability is obvious and stated in the 2nd two sentences. bobanny 17:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean upMy opinion has changed since yesterday. This article should be kept, as it does assert notability now.  Need a little clean-up though. - Rjd0060 23:23, 18 August 2007 (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.