Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urban Science

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. ansh 666 21:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Science

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient coverage in secondary sources to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article is poorly written, but this is a substantial company. Hundreds of hits in Newspapers.com. Coverage includes: this feature story from 2009 and this feature story from 1983. Cbl62 (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based upon the refs identified by Cbl62. Szzuk (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2018 (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.