Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imperatriz (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   delete.  Sandstein  12:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Imperatriz (bus company)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability - Having searched the Portuguese Wiki as well as "Google in Portuguese" - I literally can't find anything other than there website which is conveniently down!. Fails GNG – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 16:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Their website is http://www.avimperatriz.com.br/ and is up. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (utter)  @ 16:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (sing)  @ 16:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

 Keep . Since this article has apparently been around since 2006 (in which time, if it was completely made up, someone would have noticed it by now?), I think Wikipedia can afford to wait for an actual Portuguese speaker, or an expert in Brazilian bus transport, to give some idea whether or not this is a significant operator. I don't think Davey is either of those, and his record elsewhere gives me reason to believe these searches for notability aren't as rigorous as the use of words like "literally" make it sound. He said the same thing about an English bus operator called NIBs recently, yet I found a local news report in Google within a minute, and know of at least one article about it in the print media. Given that, do I believe that Davey would be able to be more thorough than that on a foreign language version of Google? I think no. As the article says, this operated runs at least four routes into Florianópolis, which is one of Brazil's state capitals, and that, for me, is good reason to think claims there is literally no coverage of it are probably incorrect. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Keep" vote was withdrawn by the editor in the comment below at 14:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC) BMK (talk) 03:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FImperatriz_(bus_company)&diff=639949491&oldid=639923006]
 * Exactly since 2006 and in that time no one's fixed the article (because I assume the lack of sources out there), As you've been told before if you're !voting Keep you should provide sources otherwise it's just baseless assertions. – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 17:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You assume all sorts of things that in reality turn out to not be true. It doesn't take a genius to realise why the English version of Wikipedia might not be as good as it could be in the subject of Brazilian bus operators. Last time I looked, most of the native population had more pressing things on their mind than adding articles to English Wikipedia. Are we for example to assume that just because Transport in Brazil doesn't even contain the word "bus", that there are in-fact no bus operators in the country? Obviously not. And are we to really believe that, according to Category:Bus companies of Brazil, there are only actually four bus companies in the entire country of Brazil (including this one)? I think not. Looking closer, one of those isn't even a bus operator, and one might not be an operator but a manufacturer. The only other one that's an operator also happens to be running routes into Florianópolis, so was perhaps created by the same person. Given that, and given your history of antipathy towards this subject, isn't it more likely that what we're about to see here is not the pruning out of some non-notable companies from a well developed body of work on the subject of Brazilian bus transport, we're instead about to witness the stubbing out of the first attempts by anyone to actually document Brazilian bus operators on Wikipedia? Anyway, you were talking about the perils of making baseless assumptions.... Notforlackofeffort (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * At the end of the day I nominated this as I didn't find anything in English nor Portuguese, If you can find anything please add it..... – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 19:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You already know my view on appeals of that nature. Let the people who seek to pass judgement do the work to fix their own mistakes, is my motto. Add to that the fact that since I don't speak Portuguese, I wouldn't even presume to be able to find anything anyway, even if I was minded to try. If there are no notable Brazilian bus operators out there, then so be it, I guess that's just what Wikipedia will have to tell the world. It's no more or less ridiculous than some of the things it's telling the world about buses in English speaking parts of the world. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: I can't find anything that would come close to establishing notability for this org. Vrac (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Which rather begs the question, what did you actually find and where did you look? (since Davey apparently found literally nothing). And did your knowledge of Spanish help, or is it sufficiently different from Portuguese (which you apparently don't speak) to be useless for such a task? Notforlackofeffort (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, since you apparently use it, is the Spanish Wikipedia coverage of Brazilian bus operators/transport as pathetic as the English version is? If not, can you give us some pointers as to which operators are notable, and should have an article here. Since it appears that if this article is deleted, and the one presumably started by the same user (JOTUR), then English Wikipedia will actually have zero articles on any Brazilian bus operators (judging by the category anyway). Notforlackofeffort (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. If the keep !voter above would actually post sources instead of repeated tirades, I might be willing to reconsider my position after reviewing those. -- Kinu  t/c 19:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have any sources, and indeed I haven't even looked for any. Perhaps if you read what I wrote instead of just dismissing it as "tirades" you might have noticed that already. My issue is how/where people are looking. Might I be able to know what you found and presumably dismissed as not meeting GNG/CORP, or is that view based on the fact you found nothing at all? Notforlackofeffort (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Unsourced article, fails WP:V and as said above does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP, could not find sources on Portuguese Google and the article does not even exist in the Portuguese Wikipedia project.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The article contains the company's website. Unless anyone here can prove the reason it's offline is because it's fake, I'd say that counts as verifiable. Also, I wouldn't put any faith in the fact any Wikipedia doesn't contain any article - this is the English Wikipedia and yet it has MASSIVE gaps in coverage of UK bus operators - for example, London Northern ran hundreds of buses for many years in the 1990s in London, yet it has no article here, and apparently never will, because of its total reliance on 5 second Google searches to establish 'notability' (since the 1990s were the preinternet age, coverage of London Northern, in the required independent/reliable form at least, is confined to books). As such, the only mention of it here at all is a blink and you'd miss it two line fragment in another article. Unless Imperatriz is one of the very biggest operators in Brazil (which it clearly isn't on the face of that article), I wouldn't say its absence from the Portuguese Wikipedia is evidence of nothing. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * On the issue of methodology, it should be noted that 'Imperatriz' is apparently Portugeuse for Emperor (or Empress?). As such, unless people reveal their specific methodology (such as whether or not they used other search terms), claims by non-Portuguese speakers to have not found any evidence of notability of a bus company called Imperatriz in Portuguese Google are about as convincing to me as if a non-English speaker said they couldn't find any information about a bus company called "King" in the English version of Google. As it happens, there is at least one notable bus operator in the UK called King's, but I don't even need to check to already know it won't have any article here, because the coverage of English bus transport on the English Wikipedia is so crap. I expect Portuguese Wikipedia suffers from the same issues. I just tried a Google search on the name of a Brazilian operator that I know for a fact runs nearly 1,000 buses over nearly 100 routes, but since I'm not a Portuguese speaker and since it too apparently has an ambiguous name, unsurprisingly I couldn't find anything in the first three pages that I could have pointed to as showing it was notable. I don't think I even saw the word "bus" in the results more than once. Perhaps the people here claiming they've found nothing, might like to do the same, and reveal what success they have? Notforlackofeffort (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, I am from Spain, I have been to Brazil and visited our neighbor Portugal for many years and I have not had too much trouble communicating. I have dug a bit deeper, and I have found the website for the company Imperatriz I have also found two articles with a brief mention in a local newspaper relating to a strike of all six bus companies of that municipality, Florianópolis, I am including the one where normal services are resumed: Transporte coletivo na Grande Florianópolis volta ao horário normal na manhã desta segunda-feira The article establishes that the company exists, but the subject does not seem to be covered extensively by reliable sources, so since trivial or incidental coverage is not sufficient to establish notability I can not recommend to keep it (I don´t think that just been a bus company is notable. This is just a small local company, not even close to the top ten of Brazil). --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's better. In that case, I withdraw my vote to keep, since I am now satisfied that at least one person here has probably made a decent effort to look for evidence of notability. Having looked at their website though, it's better than what I am usually used to seeing for non-notable operators here in the UK. Perhaps Brazil just has better web site designers.... Notforlackofeffort (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:GNG, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:BURDEN. Nominators are required to follow the instructions at WP:BEFORE. Article creators and supporters must meet the burden of verifiability. Personal motto or not, the suggestion that a nominator should have to prove something is non-notable is nonsense, contrary to almost every policy and guideline we have.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, it's nonsense is it? Well, let's see what BEFORE actually says. "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. (See step D.)" Looking at Step D, now we know (from Crystallizedcarbon) that yet again, as I have seen him do before, this has been another case where Davey saying he "literally found nothing", is in reality not quite right, and what he presumably meant to say (if this is what actually happened, which I suspect it is not) is that he did a thorough search, and while he could verify the information was true having found various sources (such as local news sites), he still didn't think it was enough to prove notability. It also says "try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page". Can you think of any reason why Davey, who clearly can't speak Portuguese and clearly knows absolutely nothing about Brazilian bus operators, didn't follow that advice, and attempt to ask anyone who might, for assistance? I can think of the reason, and it's very much not in the spirit of BEFORE. Is there any reason to believe Davey followed the advice of BEFORE at all in this case? The evidence suggests not. In fact, if I asked you whether or not you followed BEFORE, would you be able to say yes? Given all the things I've said above about the language issues, the vague company name, and the all the other stuff you completely ignored (while curiously choosing to notice my 'motto'). And even though I said it before, apparently you ignored it - unless you can prove that the reason this company's website was down (and looking back, do we even know that for sure? the url is not in the article, so how do we know Davey even found the right link?) was because it doesn't actually exist, then you have no reason at all to think this article was not verifiable. Common sense dictates that websites can be offline temporarily, and that all you need to do is wait (and if you can't wait, use an archive service). Having now looked at the auto-translated version of their website, I see this company operates 33 buses, has a history going as far back as the 1960s, and was purchased by a larger group in 2008. Therefore, when looking at comparable UK cases, I think it's pretty obvious to me that by erasing it from Wikipedia entirely (which will be the outcome here no doubt) is probably going to be a mistake (in the obviously ridiculous assumption that some day someone will be coming to Wikipedia to research the bus transport history of Brazil or indeed Florianópolis, pop. 1m, or Santa Catarina state, pop. 6m - it can't even do that for English speaking countries very well, and probably never will, even though it's clearly part of Wikipedia's purpose). Yet I doubt there is anyone here, least of all Davey, who is actually going to bother to ensure any of this information is preserved. Does Wikipedia even have an article on the company which apparently owns this company? Are they a larger bus operator group, or are they a large and diverse conglomerate? Who knows. More importantly in this case, who really cares. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I conducted my own search. If you found something I didn't, feel free to post it here. Otherwise, your accusations of bad faith, your personal attacks and your non-policy nonsense have no place here.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 21:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, no evidence of the subject's notability has been presented here or in the article itself. As Stalwart111 correctly notes, the suggestion that a nominator should have to prove that the subject is non-notable is nonsense. Nsk92 (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't even know why I'm wasting my time with this bullshit any more, but please note that this "suggestion" only had one origin - Stalwart111 himself. It's part of a whole host of myths about what I supposedly believe or have said that he has been steadily built up by him to discredit me, for reasons only he knows. I might have said things that sound close to that to people not paying close attention, but I have categorically never said people have to "prove non-notability", because as you rightly said, it is nonsense (although strictly speaking, if you're following BEFORE and you find nothing, that's a kind of proof). I have tried elsewhere, but apparently failed, to point out that if there are common sense reasons to believe there should be coverage, then you perhaps shouldn't take certain people's blanket statements that there is none out there as read, especially if their failure to find it has a pattern to it. But apparently this is a logical step too far for most people here. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh please, your insinuation was obvious - that Davey2010's judgement and capacity to adhere to WP:BEFORE couldn't be trusted and that a higher burden of proof should be required because of your personal opinion about sources that should or might be out there (though you have no interest in doing the "leg work" to find them as you've said repeatedly). Both of those ideas are anathema to the way WP works.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 10:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You made it up. I believe that's called ORIGINAL RESEARCH - combine a little bit of what I said there, with a little from over there, and hey presto, you come up with something entirely new which you claim I said, even though I did not. You can keep complaining all you want, you know exactly what I have said, and you can presumably work out whether or not anything I have actually said is "anathema to the way WP works". You've heard of COMMONSENSE right? As for BEFORE, I went through all that above, so it was no surprise you ignored it and instead chose to reply to something else entirely. I won't do the work for you, no, not even when I know the price to be paid is the loss of a notable article. And I just continue to be amazed at your apparent surprise that you seem to think insults and misrepresentations and threats will make me change my mind. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 10:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That applies to articles, not the plainest reading of opinions and comments from editors. I have no intention of changing your mind, nor do I think it would be worth the effort. Your own actions will get you blocked and even you have withdrawn your keep opinion here. By your own admission, you're clearly not here to write articles, fix articles or save articles from deletion. So why are you here?  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 10:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My mistake. Let's call it what it is then, lying. As for what to call "not here to save articles from deletion", given where we are talking right now, I can only think that's some kind of winter snow-blindness. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you've made no effort to fix the article by finding sources, adding them to the article, establishing notability and then arguing a cogent case for keeping it. You've vaguely waved at what might be there, asserted things without evidence, and attacked the nominator. None of that will actually save the article and you know it - you've acknowledged as much but have refused to "do the leg work". You're just getting silly. Oh, and yes, I lied by quoting you. LOL.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 21:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 *  Keep  Reluctant Delete, this is a perfectly reasonable stub member of WP:BUS. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Which satisfies WP:GNG how?? Nsk92 (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I concede the point. Note the following:
 * Unlike some sub-elements of the Transportation project, there are no guidelines (that I saw) that supported stubs like this.
 * There are other weak bus articles but this does not support this article.
 * Most importantly, from my perspective, for all we know, this might be a very important transportation provider in Brazil (the streets may be papered with their brochures), but as I don't live there and don't speak Portuguese, we, unfortunately, assume this company lacks notability. Sad. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non-notable troll spore. BMK (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG as there aren't WP:RS to establish notability. --Jersey92 (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:Ignore and Keep: I like simple, no-nonsense stub articles that tell me exactly what something is (without any obvious puffery or coatracking) in one lede sentence - and when Google has zilch, I like them even better.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2015 (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.