Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rambler Coaches


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Rambler Coaches

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable local company Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (I declined speedy deletion of this article.) I wasn't able to find any significant coverage online beyond what's already in the article.  I can't assess the print source it cites, though.  Seems to fail WP:CORP; tentative delete. —Cryptic 07:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable. 82.132.186.32 (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC) — 82.132.186.32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep (as creator), not the most notable company, but has gained coverage in local, trade and enthusiast press. Soton23 (talk) 08:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you characterize the currently-cited offline coverage in Bus & Coach Buyer and Buses Magazine? How in-depth are they - in particular, how similar is the Bus & Coach Buyer source to the similarly-named article from Hastings & St Leonards Observer that's available online?  —Cryptic 01:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- The fact that the article is verifiable does not make the subject notable. It strikes me as a typical local coach operator, of which there are hundred in UK, if not thousands.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There are thousands of villages, listed buildings and actors -the number, or claim that they are "typical" is not a reason for deletion;also many have less history than this, such as companies founded after deregulation. The GNG is, in addition to verifiability, a reason to keep, and this would not be indiscriminate as there are others- even with public transport routes- that are less notable and have been deleted. 82.132.184.165 (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC) — 82.132.184.165 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 10:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - If there was more coverage etc I'd of gone with Keep however there's bugger allon the company, Fails CORP & GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 17:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per Peterkingiron. Utterly non-notable and fails WP:CORP.Charles (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This just shows how much certain editors' views on notability differ from community consensus as demonstrated by Articles for deletion/Bloomex (3rd nomination) (result: keep) and earlier AFDs for that article. Unfortunately many of these editors target articles related to buses in the UK, which causes bias against those topics. There are two sources of the type suitable for notability (plus two follow-up articles to one of them) in that AFD, and three sources that contribute to notability for Rambler Coaches, which provide much more of the type of information that belongs in an article. Peter James (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * A company that operates a nation wide franchise is very different from a small local transport company.Charles (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Different, but not inherently more suitable for an article. Wikipedia doesn't discriminate against local shops in favour of catalogues or online shops. What's important is whether the sources are sufficient for an acceptable article to be written - whether other people think they are worth writing about, not your opinion. Peter James (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2016 (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.