The result was merge to University Circle#Public Transportation. There is a general consensus that the level of coverage of this subject in the sources would not support having a separate article. Most are in favour of a merge, and the sources offered during the discussion would be enough to cite some of the currently uncited material, so a merge seems to be a reasonable solution. However, I would like to remind the participants that all merged material should be cited to a reliable source, as it must comply with Wikipedia's verifiability policy. — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 17:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Non notable university shuttle buses. Not a municipal transit system, these are campus shuttle buses. Article has no absolutely no evidence of notability: no reliable sources as required by WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Here, the only citation is a link rotted shuttle bus schedule. Even after previous AFD, which was closed as no consensus due to lack of !votes, no one has been able to demonstrate the existence of reliable sources. GrapedApe ( talk) 14:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Would it be possible for one or two of the defending editors to make improvements to the article? I feel puzzled by the vehement arguments that the article could be significantly improved, while the article itself remains unimproved. I will have an easier time supporting keeping an article that has been improved than one that merely hypothetically could be improved. I made a good-faith attempt at finding citable sources so that I could contribute to that improvement effort myself. Thank you. -- DanielKlotz ( talk · contribs) 10:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Our deletion policy is "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." Unscintillating ( talk) 16:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC) reply*Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome.
The result was merge to University Circle#Public Transportation. There is a general consensus that the level of coverage of this subject in the sources would not support having a separate article. Most are in favour of a merge, and the sources offered during the discussion would be enough to cite some of the currently uncited material, so a merge seems to be a reasonable solution. However, I would like to remind the participants that all merged material should be cited to a reliable source, as it must comply with Wikipedia's verifiability policy. — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 17:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Non notable university shuttle buses. Not a municipal transit system, these are campus shuttle buses. Article has no absolutely no evidence of notability: no reliable sources as required by WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Here, the only citation is a link rotted shuttle bus schedule. Even after previous AFD, which was closed as no consensus due to lack of !votes, no one has been able to demonstrate the existence of reliable sources. GrapedApe ( talk) 14:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Would it be possible for one or two of the defending editors to make improvements to the article? I feel puzzled by the vehement arguments that the article could be significantly improved, while the article itself remains unimproved. I will have an easier time supporting keeping an article that has been improved than one that merely hypothetically could be improved. I made a good-faith attempt at finding citable sources so that I could contribute to that improvement effort myself. Thank you. -- DanielKlotz ( talk · contribs) 10:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Our deletion policy is "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." Unscintillating ( talk) 16:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC) reply*Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome.