Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Vectis route 10


 * 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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 08:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Southern Vectis route 10

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

After the Deletion of Southern Vectis route 1 and other Southern Vectis routes which were supported by consensus this is a bulk deletion to debate the remaining lists. These are Non-notable bus routes, The articles are sourced to a number of of sources which are either primary or tangential to the route as a whole neither of which establish notability per the General notability guidleines which require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Any key information can be inserted into the Southern Vectis article but doesn't need its own sprawling article with an unsourced/unsourceable history. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The other articles nominated under this reasoning are:


 * Delete per nom. Fail WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL.--Charles (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - Anyone with sense would check the operators website, not WP! Davey 2010   Talk  21:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete the three Southern Vectis route articles, no evidence of significant coverage. Mergeor possibly keep Wightbus route 16; two of the sources are primarily about the route, but refer to it as "rail link", no mention of route number. A separate article may be unnecessary, if this is all the coverage that exists, but there's information that can be added to the Wightbus article. WP:NOTTRAVEL isn't relevant, as the information is not inherently unsuitable, it just lacks evidence of notability. "Check the operator's website" is also a poor reason as these routes are defunct; the articles also contain historical information that probably won't be found there. Peter&#160;James (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. — Joaquin008  ( talk ) 10:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. People will want to do the the companies website to find relevant information and not Wikipedia which will show up first on most search engines. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 15:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a valid reason for deletion for multiple reasons. (a) People will also want to use musicians' and companies' websites to find relevant information, should we delete their articles? (b) The routes don't exist any more - Wikipedia mentions this, but this information isn't as easy to find on official sites (if they exist) as it's only in news archives. (c) We don't redirect to external sites, and have no control over external searches. (d) Search on Google for a current route with a Wikipedia article and there will usually be a more official site above Wikipedia in the results. Peter&#160;James (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per recent precedent: we have deleted bus route articles wholesale. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2013 (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.