Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stotts Tours (Oldham)

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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stotts Tours (Oldham)[edit]

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

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

Can’t find enough significant coverage from the references or a BEFORE search for this to meet WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quick look on the net found they were the first company in the UK to be fined for not auto enrolling their workers onto a pension scheme (added with refs). Definitely notable because of this. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 11:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being the first offender to be convicted under any legislation is not inherently notable. Mention of the case at Pensions_in_the_United_Kingdom#Automatic_enrolment might be an option but would be undue attention unless there is solid indication that the consideration of this Magistrates Court case on 7-8 February 2018 amounts to " sustained coverage ... which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage"? AllyD (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I think so, as their public transport licence was then reduced, which although linked, are two reportedly separate news stories and enough I think to make them notable.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 14:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article does not meet GNG or ORGCRIT/NCORP and BEFORE did not show SIGCOV from IS RS. Routine, mill, normal coverage does not meet WP:N. If others think the material here about the violation is encyclopedic (I don't), it can be merged into the article about the law. // Timothy :: talk 12:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with earlier observation about being at fault in law (the pensions case) does not merit inherent notability. Even though they are the first case, this does not meet WP:NCRIME. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:53, 31 January 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.