Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ensignbus


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Dea  db  eef  23:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Ensignbus

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I can find no more than a passing reference to this company in independent secondary sources, otherwise only in-house sites and self-published fan sites. Fails WP:GNG. Charles (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  21:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  21:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep as does meet WP:GNG, Instead of nominating it why not WP:FIXIT? ..... -


 * →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  22:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The subject is not notable because you say it is. Significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources needs to be found and perhaps will be. This article was recreated from a redirect in 2007, without any independent sources, by an editor who is now banned. As far as I can see it never has had any reliable secondary sources since then although it has been changed by multiple editors. It is the responsibility of those who add material to provide references for it per WP:BURDEN. It is no good coming out with the kneejerk response "so fix it" when an editor finally decides enough is enough and puts it up for deletion.--Charles (talk) 12:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. I don't presently have access to any sources or time to find them, but given the notability of this company among enthusiasts I would be surprised if reliable sources don't exist. Worth noting is that they won "top independent operator of the year" for 2012 at the UK Bus Awards, which looks to be taken seriously by the major players in the industry although I don't know anything else about those awards. Thryduulf (talk) 01:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The first click I made to look for sources was to click on the "news" link above.  I found a 2005 article in Time magazine.  It is a short article, but the wp:notability shown by the article is indisputable.  I checked back on the Google news page and the preceding hit is from BBC News.  The snippet states, "Essex-based bus dealer Ensignbus is witnessing a surge of interest from prospective owners. The company has scores of Routemasters parked up at its site..."  These are not, in the words of the nomination, "passing references", in-house sites, or fan sites.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I too checked out the news hits but found no articles which are actually about the company. They only mention the company in passing as they write about Routemaster sales or, more recently, energy efficient buses.--Charles (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per Unscintillating. Simply south...... eating shoes for just 7 years 12:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Looking through WP:GNG guidelines suggest that the article is notable, so shouldn't be deleted. It is also a part of London's transport history, so I beg to differ why this would want to be deleted just because one person wants it deleted. Tom... the magic... Tomato Talk  07:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "just because one person wants it deleted" - Least I'm not the only one to notice! -


 * →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  07:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep At the time of nomination, the article failed WP:V, but there are some references now, and notability has never been in question.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:07, 13 May 2013 (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.