Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenvale Transport


 * 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 no consensus. There is no consensus regarding the regional-ness (?) of one of the key sources, and also no consensus regarding the deletion of the article based off this. If the NCORP discussion reaches a clear resolution that the LE is not an appropriate source for demonstrating notability, this close is obviously not prejudicing a re-nomination. Daniel (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Glenvale Transport

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NCORP. Almost the whole thing is unsourced and there is no sourcing to verify 99% of it SK2242 (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per nom. The sources listed e.g. Commercial Motor have many articles covering transport companies, nearly all of these companies are usually non-notable. Likewise, local newspapers have articles covering local businesses, again these businesses are usually non-notable. Having the local newspaper or trade magazine mentioning a business does not make that business notable. -- Devoke  water  18:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Aside from this article being about a major defunct public transportation company of a major English city, the Commercial Motor and The Herald sources present in the article alone demonstrate the company's notability. About the verifiability issue, the unsourced statement present in the article can probably all be checked and sourced by someone with access to the archives of the Liverpool Echo. Place the tag and move on, AfD is not cleanup. Mottezen (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope. Those sources have nothing to do with Glenvale, and only serve notability of other companies that existed before them. SK2242 (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Far from having "nothing to do with with Glanvale", the previous companies' notability enhances the notability of the company who acquired, consolidated and expanded the same service. See below for sources concerning this service from 2001 to 2005 under the name "Glenvale Transport". Mottezen (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, notability is not inherited. SK2242 (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User:SK2242, you're arguing strictly on the letter of the policies, but are not honoring them in spirit. WP:NCORP is so stringent because of the need to counter PR pages and advertisement. This page does not have this issue, as the company is defunct. Read the article closer and you'll find the article was split from the main Stagecoach Merseyside article. Therefore, it is not really about the corporation, but instead tells the story of the corporate consolidation in the public transit sector of Liverpool following from its privatisation in the 1980s to 2005. This former topic is notable; when you search "Glenvale Transport" in google books, you get sources that delve exclusively on this topic, mentioning the company only in passing. As such, simply renaming and rescoping this article to History of Stagecoach Group or History of public transit privatisation in Liverpool is a surefire way to prevent all the loss of content you're advocating for. Meeting WP:NCORP wouldn't be an issue under such title. Mottezen (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Almost any company article has to meet NCORP, whether it is active or defunct. You can make a seperate article on that subject if you want. SK2242 (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Source on this company can be found on the Liberpool Echo website, and searching for its name in its archive yields a lot of hits . Keep in mind that these are likely not all the articles published by the newspaper on this company, as newspapers certainly did not publish all on their content on their website at the time. Regardless, I managed to find these three sources   giving WP:SIGCOV to this topic and added them to this article. Mottezen (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * All fails WP:AUD a significant component of NCORP. SK2242 (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed the Commercial Motor + local newspapers fails WP:AUD  Devoke  water  18:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The only national source I found on google is this one . While it might look like it has only two sentence, it's exclusively on-topic, and the layout suggests a video was present on the page. It was likely presenting a news story on its demise. This video is no more accessible since Flash player was discontinued. WP:AUD states that "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary", that's the one Mottezen (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the national source has to be SIGCOV like the others as mentioned in AUD, but you appear not to have quoted that part. SK2242 (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The national source I quote does meet SIGCOV. Mottezen (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2 sentences? And even if it did it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. "the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business" is listed as trivial coverage. SK2242 (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It meets SIGCOV because of the video. Coverage about a bus company that held 30% of the market in the UK's 5th metropolitan area is NOT trivial. Mottezen (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As I just said NCORP specifically says, coverage on business sales is trivial coverage. The fact that there’s a video doesn’t really matter if they couldn’t/wouldn’t write more than 2 sentences about it. SK2242 (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The Liverpool Echo does not fail WP:AUD. It's a regional newspaper List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom. Mottezen (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not a list of regional newspapers, as evidenced by the fact the Liverpool Echo covers Liverpool and not the North West, and other newspapers on there are obviously AUD fails too. SK2242 (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Liverpool Echo covers [just] Liverpool Fails verification other newspapers on there are obviously AUD fails Why? AUD doesn't define what a regional newspaper is. So what if they cover only parts of a national subdivision? non-wiki source for list of Regional Daily Newspapers in the UK. The Liverpool Echo is on there. Mottezen (talk) 03:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Regional means covering a region or province. Example = The Yorkshire Post. Covers the region of Yorkshire which is made up of several counties. A publication covering one county isn’t regional. SK2242 (talk) 03:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Where do you see that in WP policy? Mottezen (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, The Liverpool Echo could also be used in your example. It covers the Liverpool City Region, which is made up of Merseyside county and parts of a few others; the historic county of Lancashire and Cheshire. Mottezen (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Today, Merseyside is a single county. Its border history is irrelevant. The Liverpool Echo is local, not regional. On policy, is that off wiki article you quoted WP policy either? Also see this discussion. SK2242 (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * See Liverpool City Region, it has ‘region’ in the name covers more than just Merseyside county. Mottezen (talk) 05:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Is that off wiki article you quoted WP policy? Wikipedia relies on off-wiki reliable sources over user-generated content. The best way to show that the Liverpool Echo counts as a regional newspaper is to show that it's considered a "regional newspaper" per RS. For the Liverpool Echo, it definitely is. It's even winning Regional Press awards . Mottezen (talk) 06:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * With your first sentence you are basically saying that all our policies and guidelines are useless because they are user generated. Since you clearly won’t change your mind I’ve started a discussion on NCORP talk. SK2242 (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not what I meant, I was just referring the the poorly-attended discussion you linked. Mottezen (talk) 07:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, while it would benefit from a major cleanup, this company (when active) was a significant operator in the Liverpool and wider Merseyside region (itself not a small area) and the 2nd largest operator at the time. It was not a bit-player or a small fish in a big pond, despite not being in existence for that long. The company went defunct 15-16 years ago which makes online sources scarcer. I split it off from its successor Stagecoach Merseyside in 2008 so I can't account for much of the content. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Otherwise its a merge back into Stagecoach Merseyside which would not be beneficial.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep sources are suitable, "regional" has a meaning in the context of newspapers that isn't the based on NUTS 1 regions, and Commercial Motor isn't "media of limited interest and circulation". Peter James (talk) 20:26, 6 March 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.