Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossopdale Bus Company


 * 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   merge/redirect. I have redirected the article, the target page already contains a brief mention of this subject, more can be merged in from the page history if it is properly verified. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Glossopdale Bus Company

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable (ex)Bus Company, Article created by a SPA, no real sources to see at all. With no sources, the article also constitutes an Original Research. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep : Sorry, but I'm not sure you've assumed good faith here. I think this was written by a newcomer to Wikipedia who has knowledge on this subject, probably from actual sources rather than first hand knowledge as such, but is unfamiliar with the correct procedure to cite reliable sources. I can see a Company Check reference and a page about the company, though the latter would be a primary source. Certainly a bus company running on regular and recognised routes in the UK for many years ought to qualify as notable - there must be other sources out there. -- Ritchie333  (talk)  14:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I have acted in Bad Faith here. Our guideline of notability for a corporation of any sort WP:CORP sets a much higher bar of sourcing than even the general notability guidelines. It would look to see if the Bus Company was running services on a national (or international) scale and substantially recognised in secondary sources. Or if the bus company was only running Local services that it had achieved national (or international) coverage of its activities in reliable sources. Neither of these applies here and there is no presumption of notability for any small bus operator or even small business. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This doesn't seem to be correct. The guidelines at CORP are an alternative to GNG: indeed, CORP begins "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources".  Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:CORP is subject specific, not just an alternative - As with most Subject Specific guidelines they refer back to the GNG and then add additional considerations that need to be met for articles within that subject i.e; higher bar. Corp refers back to the GNG in "Primary criteria" then specifically rules out certain types of mention of the article subject in reliable sources as examples of notaility and asks for sources that provide more depth instead. Amongst the other criteria it says " attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." which is what I referred to above. I also referred to the section that reads "Large organizations and their products are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favouring larger organizations or their products." but since the company isn't mentioned in any reliable sources it fails to make the general notability guidelines let alone the specific terms applied to the subject of businesses. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not correct. WP:N states clearly "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." That is, the subject-specific criteria are alternative, not additional, conditions for notability.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Having taken part in the AfD's of a number of non notable companies (including PR firms who might have marginally made the GNG but failed CORP) - I have to say I have never seen Policy interpreted that way however it makes not a jot of difference because there are no sources for this company reliable, independent, in-depth or otherwise. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2012

(UTC)
 * I have tabulated the following from all the subject-specific guidelines. Some are expanding the GNG wording in for the subjects: most make it clear that they are giving alternative criteria:
 * Notability (academics): "Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria"
 * Notability (astronomical objects): "If an astronomical object meet none of these criteria, it may still be notable, provided it meets the conditions of WP:Notability"
 * Notability (books): "A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria"
 * Notability (events): "This guideline is intended to explicate the primary notability guideline with regards to current and past real events"
 * Notability (films): "A topic related to film may not meet the criteria of the general notability guideline, but significant coverage is not always possible to find on the Internet, especially for older films. The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist:"
 * Notability (music): "Wikipedia should not have a separate article on a person, band, or musical work that does not meet the criteria of either this guideline or the general notability guideline"
 * Notability (numbers): "the relevant criteria are whether professional mathematicians study the classification and whether amateur mathematicians are interested by it"
 * Notability (organizations and companies): "These criteria constitute an optional, alternative method for demonstrating notability. Organizations are considered notable if they meet one of the following sourcing requirements 1. these alternate criteria, 2. the primary criteria for organizations, or 3. the general notability guideline"
 * Notability (people): "A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability"
 * Notability (sports): "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines)"
 * Notability (web): "may be notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria. 1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. "
 * Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Meets WP:N.  Rcsprinter  (gossip)  21:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How? What independent reliable sources helped you come to this conclusion? Goodvac (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence whatever of notability. It is unlikely that significant coverage in reliable secondary sources can be found.--Charles (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Speedwellbus.   Th e S te ve   09:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge (not everything, but the most significant bits) to Speedwellbus. A plausible enough search term with some significance as the precursor to a more notable company, but in terms of meeting WP:ORG by itself it doesn't seem to have acquired anything like enough coverage in reliable sources. Alzarian16 (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I should mention that in the unlikely event that Speedwellbus gets deleted at its ongoing AfD, I would then support deletion of this article since no sensible merge target would exist and the company doesn't seem to be independently notable. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Selectively merge to Speedwellbus, and should be mentioned at Stagecoach Manchester as well. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Speedwellbus. Currently, the subject does not have enough coverage in reliable third party sources to warrant a separate article. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  20:03, 8 February 2012 (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.