- 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- BusJunction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
non notable travel website Gilllnnm (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A prime candidate for speedy deletion as there is no assertion of notability.--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's notable enough to be covered by The Washington Post, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Philadelphia Daily News, Budget Travel Magazine, Jaunted, Away.com, WorldHum, etc., but it's not notable enough for Wikipedia? mdk250 (talk) 06:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepBusJunction was written up in the New York Times today. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that officially meets #1 of the notability criteria. mdk250 (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Keep - This was nominated by a previously unknown deletionist who has done nothing creative. That is grossly unfair. Let it breathe - then we will see. FairFare (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - This article does look like advertising. However, it can be tweaked to remove such. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 03:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepArticle has been tweaked to sound more informational, less salesy mdk250 (talk) 06:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment all you like but please only !vote once. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment IMO this discussion could benefit from a little more imput. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While the article still needs some work and there is unverified information that needs citations, the sources listed in the article fulfill WP:WEB as far as notability: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." I didn't even have to look for more sources, they're included, very clear-cut. Drawn Some (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - Agree with comments above, but I am troubled by the fact that the only significant contributor is probably the owner of the website. Secondarywaltz (talk) 02:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.