Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuckmere Buses


 * 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. Daniel (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Cuckmere Buses

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Only decent coverage is 2 Eastbourne Herald articles - not enough to meet WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep There are enough sources to meet WP:GNG. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Such as? The sourcing in the article is crap. The only decent looking BBC ref (archived here) is 5 sentences long. SK2242 (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:NEXIST. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:SIGCOV, of which there is barely any for this minor bus company. SK2242 (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To add to this, NEXIST only points out that lack of sources doesn’t mean no notability, not the case here. I strongly urge you to reconsider your !vote. SK2242 (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The idea that you can have a charity and community transport service which is not known and written about is absurd. Finding sources is just a matter of looking.  See here for example –    professional coverage of the bus industry which naturally competent and clear.  My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you provide more detail as to the level of coverage in the source plus the editorial standards of the website? I still don’t see any significant coverage. SK2242 (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I find the source to be quite satisfactory and it demonstrates that the nomination is erroneous. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My nomination is perfectly fine thank you very much. That still does not look like significant coverage and I have no idea how reliable it is. Nothing erroneous with this nomination. SK2242 (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - As stated by the nom, the brief BBC coverage is the only reference currently in the article that can actually be used to try to establish notability - the remainder of the current sources are either press releases or the company's own website. I did some searches, both under its current and former names, and really did not come up with anything at all that can be considered WP:SIGCOV.  I found a one-sentence mention in a travel guide, here.  And there are a couple of articles in local news sources, such as this one, which is just a local report on a bus' wheels being stolen rather than any actual information or coverage on the company itself.  Pretty much the only coverage I could find that talks more about the company in a greater extent than a couple of sentence is this blurb in another travel guide.  WP:NEXIST is only a valid argument if there actually is significant coverage that can be found, and there just really does not seem to be on this small, local company.  Maybe a mention & redirect to Berwick, East Sussex could be possible, but even that seems like it would be a bit undue coverage on what looks to be a fairly non-notable business. Rorshacma (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:NCORP, niche/local coverage only. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 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.  // Timothy :: talk  12:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.