Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regal Busways

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Happy to userfy if anyone has found some extra sources Spartaz Humbug! 20:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regal Busways[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Regal Busways (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (that are not local or of limited interest) - fails WP:NCORP. SK2242 (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a defunct company that no longer operates.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is not relevant to whether we should have an article. Many organizations that no longer exist are very notable, and many organizations that exist currently are not notable. The issue is whether there is adequate sources, not whther the organization is extant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know that, but the page does not state it. I am local and their last route ran behind my house. That's why I am not voting.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, mentions in multiple local and industry sources. Lilporchy (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lilporchy: Any sources that aren’t mentions? Because mentions do not constitute notability. SK2242 (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To determine whether sources exist to support notability
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I observe the Bungle comment but UK is in lockdown.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which isn’t a keep rationale. If you can’t find sources in libraries you can !vote to userfy. SK2242 (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But its a rational to relist. I'll be frank ... I'm likely to leave the project on this lot being allowed be admins by people you are here to destroy an encyclopedia. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tone it down. I am not "destroying" anything. SK2242 (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not likely. The decent thing before embarking on a wholesale slaughter is to, as suggested by WP:BEFORE to consider alternatives to deletion. That for a start means in my book engaging or attempting to engage with the appropriate WikiProject. The other thing is to initially tag items that have problems. To do these things in a middle of lockdown when access to library resources and private bookshops are limited is very frustrating. And it is a badly disruptive experience. If you disagree then take me to WP:ANI. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I go through the entirety of BEFORE all the time. Alright, maybe there are cases where we can merge. But this article is not one of those cases. If you’re saying I’m not doing any source checking, that is wholeheartedly false. Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that going to a library will uncover a great wealth of significant non trivial coverage that passes the NCORP requirements. If I’m wrong, request userfication or undeletion if you find such sigcov. I also don’t believe I have to go to the WikiProject talk page every time I find a non notable article. If you disagree start a thread and we discuss. As to tagging, no amount of editing can fix notability issues. SK2242 (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Apart from all the sources already in the article, it is easy to find more such as the English Bus Handbook - Notable Independents. Our policy WP:ATD therefore applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 22:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question: does said book contain significant non trivial coverage of Regal Busways? SK2242 (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The book doesn't cover Regal Busways: [1]. SilkTork (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork's link points to the 7th edition. Regal appears in the 5th edition. Presumably it has been dropped from later editions because the business and their fleet has declined. But, for our purposes, such notability does not expire as we're here to provide historic coverage, not a directory or timetable. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be correct to say that these books provide factual information relating to the vehicles/buses but no "Independent Content" on the actual companies themselves? For example, the book self-describes as follows: "For each operator, vehicles are listed in fleet number order with details of the chassis, bodywork, seating capacity and year of build provided for each type of vehicle. Fleet number, registration number and home garage (where allocated) are provided for every individual vehicle.". HighKing++ 21:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The book naturally provides the information that its readers are interested in and are prepared to pay for in multiple editions. If this is details of its fleet of buses then that's what notable. Other sources provide other facts and so it goes. If HighKing is interested in particular aspects of the company then that's their personal preference but we are not required to conform to their expectations and work to their specification. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think you nailed your colours to the mast by declaring that deletion was disruptive so I'm not in the slightest bit surprised that you'd rather pursue ad hominen commentary rather than address my question in relation to our requirement for "Independent Content" as per our ... you know ... guidelines. HighKing++ 13:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a book which covers the topic in detail in multiple editions and my thanks is to get false accusations and ad hominem attacks. As for deletion, it is clearly dangerous and disruptive to good faith activity and that's why the function is so tightly controlled and restricted. This is the reason that we have these discussions and that due diligence should be done so that good faith content is not casually destroyed contrary to our guidelines and policies such as WP:BITE and WP:PRESERVE. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is contrary to every single one of our notability guidelines as well as verifiability policy. Good faith content is often deleted for lack of notability and/or verification. The idea that deletion is "dangerous" is laughable at best. If so, then why are you posting on a noticeboard called "articles for deletion"? Should you not be attempting a proposal to scrap it? I find your comment very unhelpful to the ongoing efforts by me and other edits to clean up the encylopedia. SK2242 (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 13:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or Draftify if Djm-leighpark wants to pick this up post lockdown) The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP and requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. There are a lot of bus-company-related articles up for deletion recently and I think it might be better to create a "List of..." type article instead. HighKing++ 21:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion does not encourage editors to do development of that kind. Instead, it drives them away per WP:BITE. Deletion is obviously disruptive because it obfuscates the edit history, breaks links and denies attribution contrary to our policy WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, honestly, deletion is disruptive? We have standards. Using your logic we'd keep everything and forget about quality. I'm glad we've standards. HighKing++ 13:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If deletion was so disruptive, everyone but the most ardent inclusionists ought to have been blocked for disruptive editing. SK2242 (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails NCOPR/GNG. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, WP:CORPSPAM, etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: From my memories of Essex any motor vehicle that was left in Basildon without being stolen or having parts stolen was notable, CORPSPAM ... presumably designed to imply "Coporate Spam" simply isnt really relevant here ... for practical purposes the company isn't trading. In the UK there's a vast swathe of the population that doesn't do buses; there's a further swathe, not so well off that do. This article helps with historical content. And intrinsically it just scrapes WP:GNG as it is. And post lockdown when, hopefully, I have access to bookshops in Cosham, Chichester and Arundel let alone next time tha Alton Bus Rally runs, and I go to it rather than talking about it, I'll probably get access to a few more resources.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Regal_Busways&oldid=1013853129"