Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baxter's Bus Lines

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, WP:CORP refers. (aeropagitica) 17:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baxter's Bus Lines[edit]

Non-notable company, removed from the public transport network since article created. This article is effectively advertising. Joestella 17:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it "effectively" does not mention any of its current, nn services, only what it did when it was of note. If nothing else, move to a List of bus operators in Sydney, a to-be-existant spin-off of Buses_in_Sydney#List_of_current_bus_operators_in_Sydney. -- Zanimum 17:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article amounts to advertising for a non-notable company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doc Tropics (talk • contribs) 17:51, 13 December 2006
Keep. Once notable, always notable. The fact that this company in Australia has divested its commuter operations does not detract from the fact that it was clearly notable when it was a commuter operator. A factual, NPOV article is not an advertisement. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The company used to operate public transport but now it doesn't. Does it meet WP:CORP? If it does the article should be improved. If not it should be deleted. ~~PS can someone who knows how add it to Australian Articles for Deletion watchlist?~~Ga rr ie 00:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Truthbringertoronto. Rebecca 00:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article has some sourcing and the Google News Archive shows coverage of the sale see [1]. Borderline case but I will go with weak keep. Capitalistroadster 02:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Truthbringertoronto. JROBBO 05:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - article just hints at the notability of this historic Australian organization (and I'd hesitate to delete something not in North America without input from editors who live in the same country and the subject); it seems well sourced, but content (perhaps a history?) is definitely needed. B.Wind 22:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Wikipedia is supposed to be "timeless", without bias towards current events. Not deleting companies that were once notable helps with this aim. --NE2 22:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and strongly so, per the commenters above. Yamaguchi先生 02:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, same arguments as everyone else. John Dalton 04:46, 15 December 2006 (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.