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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tumble bus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article is very insignificant. Outside one article cited by it, I was unable to find anything else but [1] this. This "coverage" is from a random town in Minnesota's local newspaper, a clear WP:GNG fail. The court case mentioned is not enough to establish notability either, since it is a mundane trademark lawsuit. Thousands of such cases are filed per year, most which do not end up in Wikipedia. I-82-I | TALK 23:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The current article doesn't distinguish between "tumble bus" and "Tumblebus". "Tumblebus" is the small business from Louisville in that court case, part of which came to whether the phrase "tumble bus" was "a generic term not entitled to Lanham Act protection", or was a company name worthy of legal protection even though it was unregistered. The generic term "tumble bus" is not in widespread use, from what I can tell, and neither the case nor the company seem worth documenting. The oldest versions were created by a single-use editor. --Lockley (talk) 08:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:MILL. How is this thing in any way notable? Bearian (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2020 (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.