Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simonds of Botesdale (2nd nomination)


 * 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/no consensus. Would have been a no consensus, but no one bothered to rebut the sources Oakshade or Trevj provided thus Keep/No Consensus. Secret account 03:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Simonds of Botesdale
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

non notable company. Fails WP:GNG & WP:CORP - →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  01:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. - Davey 2010  T  01:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Davey 2010  T  01:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. - Davey 2010  T  01:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - Davey 2010  T  01:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only published sources that address the subject use Wikipedia as their source. No evidence of notability.--Charles (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Other sources exist, such as Eastern Daily Press and some coverage in the Diss Express. Because local news there is published by two companies, it seems to meet WP:GNG. Peter&#160;James (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete -- We did a mass cull of articles on bus routes a couple of months ago. The bus routes section of this article therefore needs to be removed.  That will leave one paragraph, which says that the company exists and where it operates.  That would be a useless stub.  Peterkingiron (talk) 09:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:SALAT (particularly for what the "SA" part of the acronym refers to) and WP:NNC. There's certainly no consensus on removing all information on bus routes from Wikipedia; it depends entirely on whether the article topic is notable and whether the information would be undue within the article. The stand-alone lists of predominantly non-notable bus routes by county or district weren't suitable for inclusion separately and couldn't be merged anywhere, and the articles about bus routes were (or at least should have been) judged on individual merit (and not all have been deleted). Peter&#160;James (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Not only is this a transport company that provides scheduled mass-transit, in multiple areas no less, it easily passes WP:GNG with in-depth secondary coverage. --Oakshade (talk) 01:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Per nom. 31.50.248.157 (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The nomination is for the article to be deleted, and as you have provided no reason your comment is likely to be ignored when the decision is made. This isn't a vote - see WP:VOTE. Peter&#160;James (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and Peterkingiron. Keep per Oakshade. Aycliffe Talk Previously Tommietomato. 20:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 *  EDP24 & ipswichtransportsociety aren't widely known, The only significant coverage is ,


 * Per article - you take away route lists and you have the intro Which isn't ideal, Then in a few months/years we'll be here again! . →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  21:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not everything that can scrape together a mention or three in the local media is treated as notable. On that basis every primary school would be notable but per consensus they rarely are.--Charles (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * EDP is the Eastern Daily Press, which has higher circulation figures than the Norwich Evening News. Peter&#160;James (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah Thanks Peter!. On that note I'll strike EDP. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  16:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

→Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  14:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Oakshade. I found a few additional refs myself. A company providing public-facing services such as this is unlikely to still be trading after 25 years without having been noted by writers of the sources we rely upon. -- Trevj (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow.... Well Link 10's unrelated, Seems some only give a slight mention of SOB. -


 * 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.