Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vectare


 * 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. I would remind editors, "It will be notable" has been identified by the community as a bad argument -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 13:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Vectare

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:CORP, no significant coverage in reliable sources, just passing mentions of service changes in local press. Won a trade award in 2018, but award's notability looks weak. Draftified, then declined twice at draft, then moved to Vectare (bus operator) anyway, by a new account that certainly seems to have hit the ground running on bus company templates and articles. Storchy (talk) 05:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: For scrutiny of the newly added references. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation,  and England. Storchy (talk) 05:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I've added some references. I feel that Route One and Coach and Bus Week are reliable publications. NemesisAT (talk) 10:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep - the trade magazines cited are independent, reliable sources and they contain significant coverage of the subject. WaggersTALK  09:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability, generally a minimum of two sources of deep or significant coverage. WP:CORPDEPTH - in-depth information *on the company* WP:ORGIND - "Independent Content" which 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. Leaving aside the primary sources, we're left with 8 others as follows:
 * This from Route One is a brief mention (2 sentences) of the company because the founder (who was 19 at the time in 2016) describes his business objectives. Fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
 * This next from Route One is largely an interview with some Vectare execs who describe the software that they're developing to make school bus coordination easier. All of the information is provided by the execs (fails ORGIND) and hardly anything about the topic company (fails CORPDEPTH)
 * The UK Bus Awards in 2018 held a New Horizons Award and awarded the Gold Medal to the topic company for the software they've developed. The award is non-notable for the purposes of establishing notability. Fails CORPDEPTH
 * This from Essex Highways and Essex County Council shows a map of two bus routes and says that the topic company is now operating these routes on behalf of Essex County Council. No in-depth info, fails CORPDEPTH. Arguably this is also an announcement by an affiliated partner, fails ORGIND
 * This from Coach & Bus Week is a short summary of the above announcement from Essex Highways with a quote from a councillor. Fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
 * This from ArrivaBus is a service the topic company replaced, doesn't mention the topic company, not really relevant for notability purposes. Fails CORPDEPTH
 * This in Leicestershire Live is a good piece on the new on-demand service operated by the topic company but it doesn't provide any "Independent Content" not in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND
 * This from bustimes.org appears to be a website run by an enthusiast but the "unofficial" disclaimer lends itself to being rejected as a reliable source.
 * None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company. NemesisAT provides a reasoning of adding "reliable publications" - this is pretty much a given *before* examining the content of each source to see if it meets NCORP. Waggers says the references from trade magazines are "independent, reliable sources" that "contain significant coverage of the subject" - I disagree. Especially using the NCORP definition of independent to include "Independent Content". In addition, none of the articles are in-depth about the company. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 20:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. I largely agree with HighKing's NCORP analysis, so I don't think I need to walk through the references individually: suffice it to say that they lack independent content, don't discuss the company in sufficient depth, or both. There are a few other sources that haven't yet been mentioned (e.g. ), but they suffer from the same shortfalls. Another point is that WP:AUD doesn't seem to be satisfied: the only available sources appear to be "media of limited interest and circulation" (e.g. trade journals, which are also explicitly called out as problematic at WP:ORGIND) or "local media", and AUD says we need more than that. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delte. Lacks independent sources for WP:CORPDEPTH. The two Route-one.net citations make only passing mention. The UK Bus Awards citation has a byline "content provided by Vectare".  The operating area cites the company's own site in a password protect area. The sole objective citation was Coach&Bus Week which only mentioned their takeover of a park & ride service. Other sources refer to the company's own site. Blue Riband► 14:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep plenty of sourced references included compared to some articles which remain and have no AFD - the operator is growing and over time more references will no doubt surface. Mranon2022 (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:WAX. If in a few years time it becomes notable enough to gain substantial, independent coverage to show notability, the article can always be recreated. Storchy (talk) 06:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete As per source analysis by HighKing. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Highking's source analysis is persuasive. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:20, 16 September 2022 (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.