Deletion of Georgetown Emergency Response Medical Service

Comment: I would like to see more discussion about Stalwart111's comment, and also about how the sources in the article fare with regard to . (Note: I was meaning to add this relisting comment before Mangoe's comment above, but got sidetracked
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: Does not appear to have satisfactory coverage in |reliable sources that are independent of the subject.  Georgetown-related coverage is inapplicable because of the close connection through the GU community, especially since such coverage does not indicate "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time" as described in 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:IRS||WP:N)

Comment: A reliable source is a reliable source. Per  - "One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections." Of course student news papers publish corrections. Regarding Stalwart111's comment, there's plenty of reliable source material in the article itself for the topic per . The sourced article has plenty of depth and that depth came from the sources, so I don't see  as an issue. If The Hoya doesn't write about the Georgetown Emergency Response Medical Service the medical service won't respond to The Hoya staff's medical needs? No. The Hoya has editorial independence from Georgetown Emergency Response Medical Service (e.g., the service doesn't dictate content of The Hoya) and no one has brought forth any conflicts of interest (potential for personal, financial, or political gain from The Hoya) regarding Georgetown Emergency Response Medical Service. The Hoya is independent of the topic. Reliable sources publish information, Wikipedia summarizes that information. It's a fairly straight forward process
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:NEWSORG||WP:GNG||WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: without giving an opinion about the article itself (I have commented on others elsewhere and am waiting to see if some can be brought up to scratch) I would like to make a suggestion: a good start would be to remove all the references from The Hoya and other on-campus student sources so that you can argue your case against only reliable, independent sources. |Link spamming reference from The Hoya is only going to make other editors think (rightly or wrongly) that the article fails  and that involved (in some cases openly |COI) editors are trying to create notability where it does not exist. Whether you agree or not, |consensus seems to be that those sources are not independent. Given the article for The Hoya openly says the paper has financial links to the University, tried to cut them and failed, it is easy to see how that conclusion could be drawn. Get rid of them, build your case with the independent sources you say exist and these articles will all be saved. The reality is that if an article relies (entirely) on The Hoya to meet the ''"significant coverage"'' tag then it probably fails  already, regardless of independence
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Spam (WP:LINKSPAM||WP:GNG||WP:COI||WP:CONSENSUS||WP:GNG)