Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South West 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 keep. There appears to be a consensus that the subject clears the notability hurdle, though I note there is some disagreement about the extent to which the reliable sources cited clear the NCORP threshold. Admittedly, more nuanced policy-based arguments tend towards deletion, but I plainly do not see a consensus for deletion and, after two relists, this is a pretty clear keep/no consensus.  Go  Phightins  !  16:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

South West Coaches

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (that are not local or of limited interest) - fails WP:NCORP. SK2242 (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a useful article within the scope of WikiProject Wiltshire and is supported by a well-populated category at Commons. I have added some more reliable sources, but they could still be better, I would suggest adding a header. Moonraker (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * None of the sources added are both sigcov and satisfy WP:AUD, a component of NCORP. Being within the scope of a WikiProject and having related images on Commons do not address deficiencies in notability. SK2242 (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sigh., I agree with your last sentence, but this page has enough sources for WP:GNG, which isn’t about importance. Its main purpose is that the contents of an article can be verified from reliable sources, which this has. On WP:AUD, that says “at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary”, and there are several here of those kinds. If we were dealing with a print encyclopaedia, it would be useful to have people weeding out the articles with no national or international importance, but that isn’t the case.  Moonraker (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Which of the SIGCOV sources is provincial/national? GNG is irrelevant in this case as the article is about a company, which means the standard is NCORP, a stricter version of GNG. SK2242 (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have looked at that,, and it seems to me that the Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria are simply the GNG, as interpreted there. To me, the sources comply with the GNG. If you say not, you may like to create a source assessment table (as mentioned on that page) and post it here. But there has to be a purposive approach to all policy, and I guess if a WP page is useful, as this one clearly is, that influences people in what they say (if anything) in an AfD like this. On that front, please see also the template copied below. Moonraker (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , GNG does not have the extra criteria which is part of NCORP - such as AUD. SK2242 (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , on AUD, please see above. Moonraker (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Just my 2c, the table is useless. It doesn't for example have a part for "Independent Content" which is part of WP:ORGIND, an important section in NCORP. So the interpretation in the table of "independent" is wrong - it seems to only look at whether there are corporate links between the publisher and the organization and does not consider that the content must also be independent. We don't want "echo chamber" references based on information provided by company sources to be used to establish notability. Also, GNG is not the appropriate guideline. A references may pass GNG and fail NCORP - an article may pass GNG and fail NCORP requirements and be deleted.  HighKing++ 22:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete First off, the table above is horrendous and unnecessary. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP and applies a stricter interpretation of requirements than for other topics. In short, WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. For example, that rules out the Dorchester Echo announcement from the table above. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 22:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete First off, the table above is horrendous and unnecessary. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP and applies a stricter interpretation of requirements than for other topics. In short, WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. For example, that rules out the Dorchester Echo announcement from the table above. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 22:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: The table above is explicitly recommended in WP:NCORP. Whether or not you personally find it horrendous, that is where it comes from. If you think it is inadequate, then take it up with WP:NCORP. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NCORP.Charles (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. We need to be careful that we don't just delete every independent bus operator as that would leave Wikipedia with a distorted coverage that suggests all UK buses are operated by the big groups. As the notability guidelines say, smaller organizations and their products can be notable.
 * An operator working in a rural area rather than a big city doesn't attract so much fan interest and hence fewer citations. If it is not part of a big group it doesn't attract a lot of press attention, hence fewer citations. South West Coaches has been operating longer and with a fleet and operating area similar to many big group brands which have their own articles.
 * I would suggest that a 'ref improve' may be more appropriate. There is clearly an imbalance in the article in as much as only one of the predecessor operators is mentioned in detail. I'm sure that Wakes Services, its direct predecessor, can offer some good quality, relevant sources. Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: This seems part of an attempt to destroy all independent bus operators leaving only the big 4/5, losing the history without engaging at WikiProject level, and that in the middle of a lockdown. This is a swamping attack which cannot be defended, and a lot of stuff has already gone.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Except I would have done a mass nom of every independent if they all weren’t notable. All I am doing is identifying articles that don’t meet the clearly established notability guidelines. It is not my fault if they don’t. SK2242 (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Enough reliable sources here for WP:N, and also a useful article, part of a useful family. Moonraker (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Standard is NCORP, higher bar than N. SK2242 (talk) 06:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources also comply with that. Moonraker (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No they don't? Every source failed the NCORP standards. See HighKing's comment. SK2242 (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with HighKing’s comments. Local press articles written by local journalists clearly have independent content, as do some of the other sources. Not clear what more could be expected in a case like this. Academic articles? Doctoral theses? Moonraker (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:AUD. SK2242 (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.