Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speedwellbus


 * 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedwellbus

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable (ex)Bus Company, Article created by a SPA, Sources mainly seem to be Blogs or Self Published with one small mention in the "Glossop Advertiser". Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Notable company, well known in the Eastern Greater Manchester area, not created by an SPA, he just does that sort of thing, but other edits too. Not my fault there's not much coverage, but I'm sure if you Googled it there'd be loads.  Rcsprinter  (lecture)  13:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Rhodeswood has Two Contributions both creation of articles about this bus service under the previous Glossopdale operator and under Speedwell so yes he is a SPA and he hasn't done anything else (Unless you have evidence he's editing under another account?). Checking for sources through google and other means of searching for sources is the first stage in deciding whether an article is suitable for AfD - I've checked and there are no reliable sources what sources there are are detailed above. As you've been told many times before Notability is a measure of how often the subject has been noted in reliable sources not a measure of how well known it is in the local area. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, my mistake, I thought it was created by Sf07, as he does that sort of thing, but I never checked who actually created it. That doesn't matter anyway, the notability is more key.  Rcsprinter  (talk to me)  13:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Sufficient sources to establish notability.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Only one of which is reliable and doesn't begin to meet GNG let alone WP:CORP, per WP:BURDEN if you wish to keep you should try and provide something better. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We already have cited in the article these two pieces in a local newspaper which contain sufficient depth of coverage to meet GNG: 1, 2.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CORP - "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international thource is neessary." so that would rule out the Glossop Advertiser and from the WP:GNG - "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content." this is not significant coverage about Speedwell it doesn't address speedwell directly in detail it discusses two incidents related to speedwell neither of which asserts that speedwell is notable. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No policy "rules out" the Glossop Advertiser as a source to establish notability. Policy simply requires us to have at least one regional or national source. With the VOSA investigation this shouldn't be too hard to find. Secondly, I believe you're plain wrong when you say the two sources I gave above aren't about the subject and don't address it directly in detail. The articles talk only about the company and it's operations - this is significant coverage which the GNG you quote above goes on to say "is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". Here it is the main subject of the articles. --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are speculating on sources that you feel "shouldn't be too hard to find." Yet no-one appears to be able to provide them all we have is some mentions in the local rag which is ruled out from being used to assert notability by itself (the intent of my last post if not the actual wording). Secondly do you honestly believe that those articles constitute "Significant Coverage" if so then I propose a simple test: if these two sources discuss the article subject directly and in depth you should be able to remove all the Blogs, SPS, and primary sources a write a reasonable article from the secondary sources you claim assert notability of this subject. It may not be a test that is enshrined in policy but it would clearly establish that you are correct in your assertion. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not the definition of "significant coverage" as used in our notability guidelines. The two sources mentioned are sufficient for the GNG. In both cases our article's subject is the main subject of the source article. "Sources sufficient to meet the GNG", and "sources to support every statement in the article" are two different concepts.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read the GNG again; "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." and; ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content." I ask again; if you remove all the unreliable sources do you have enough material left to write an (not this exact) article without resorting to original research ? Even with those unreliable sources there is more than enough original research in the article to hint at what the answer will have to be (I'll give you a clue it starts with an "n"). Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Stop arguing. You've both made your point.  Rcsprinter  (chatter)  16:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep based on the sources discussed.   Th e S te ve   09:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm actually not entirely convinced by the sources presented so far, not so much because they're local in scope but because they all come from the same publisher. However, other reliable sources seem to have provided non-trivial coverage of their collapse (examples include Tameside Radio and Coach and Bus Week, the latter mostly hidden behind a paywall but with enough visisble to convince me that the coverage is significant). Throw in yet more coverage from MEN Media and I think there's just enough to meet WP:ORG here. I haven't been able to look offline yet so there may be more to come, not that that's worth much right now. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * While these new sources do show slightly wider coverage, they all focus on a single event. While WP:CORP doesn't specifically address this as a concern, it is addressed  in other guidelines.  Those guidelines suggest it fails because Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. And state that being in the news does not in itself mean that something should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. Where reliable sources cover the company only in the context of a single event, and if that company otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile company,  We generally avoid having an article on it. Articles in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * True, but we also have this piece about an unrelated earlier event, and the sources about the company's closure provide some background on it (e.g. date of formation, number of vehicles, area of operation - all of which can apparently be summarised in three sentences if this is anything to go by). Combined with routine fleet and service news from industry sources and perhaps some material from primary sources such as the company's website, I think there's enough information to avoid any neutrality issues. By the way, which policy/guideline are you getting the low-profile company stuff from? It certainly doesn't appear in NOT#NEWS, and WP:BLP1E (which uses the "remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile..." wording - is this what you were referring to?) doesn't apply to companies. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why doesn't BLP1E apply to companies - by their very definition (from the latin "Body of People") a company is a legal person though BLP concerns are not relevant concerns about notability raised are still valid;  not that it matters since BLP1E doesn't exist as a notability guideline in itself but rather explains why various policies act to prevent the creation of articles about the subject of one event - those policies still apply equally to corporations, and other subjects such as inanimate objects even when not explicitly spelled out. The glossop advertiser piece is a minor mention of an infraction in a local newspaper - a comparable might be if a councillor received a small mention in local news for losing his driving license for speeding, followed by marginally wider coverage in an obituary when he died a few years later. The small mention and the obits don't suddenly make his otherwise unnoted life suddenly notable and he would still fail our notability guidelines. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2012 (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.