Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xelabus


 * 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 (with a gentle reminder that ad hominem bickering doesn't really support the goal of building an encyclopedia).  Go  Phightins  !  15:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Xelabus

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NCORP. None of the sources are not trivial coverage and have a general, non local scope. SK2242 (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Against Nothing wrong with the article, adequately referenced from acceptable sources, no worse than many other small company articles. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Taking a look at the non primary sources: This is an example of trivial coverage listed in NCORP - "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as a product or a product line launch, sale, change, or discontinuance". It also fails WP:AUD as a local publication This is the same as above, as well as being from a trade magazine which NCORP says should be limited to featured content that is clearly independent This also fails AUD This - refer to first source This is another AUD failure and broadly another example of trivial coverage - "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: of the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel, of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business, of a capital transaction, such as raised capital" This, this and this also fail AUD. SK2242 (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The Southern Daily Echo is more of as regional than local newspaper, covering more than just Southampton. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have found two sources outside of the local area, which are and. I'm not sure if they satisfy WP:AUD or if they are credible sources. There is also this source as well. NHPluto (talk) 11:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the first is as local as the Echo and the second is just an advertising puff. The BBC ref was useful though and I’ve added it to the article. However I suspect SK2242 is ultimately right and the article will be deleted. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * BBC ref is something but it doesn’t do much to show notability, as they are ultimately reporting the death of someone hit by a bus. SK2242 (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: One of many UK / South bus article that could have been at a minimum merged if not deleted. Extremely difficult to source this during lockdown when barred from local libraries. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  EN  - Jungwon  07:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, multiple mentions in industry publications (including 2 feature articles) and local press. Meets WP:GNG. Lilporchy (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As I’ve told you before, mentions do not confer notability and NCORP is the standard for companies, not GNG. SK2242 (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So you keep telling me. The relative lack of success you have in having articles you nominate for deletion indicates that you do not have as good a grasp on the policies as you would have us believe. So no need to continue badgering me, you have convinced me to change my position, and are unlikely to do so in the future. Lilporchy (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Relative lack of success ? Oh dear. See this. SK2242 (talk) 01:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As the saying goes, there are lies, damned lies and statistics. These went well for you, you must have thought they were Lay down miseres:],,,,, ,. I realise that I'm a bit of a thorn in your side, improving articles that thwart your efforts to delete, but that's your problem. Happy editing. Lilporchy (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah yes only point out the kept AfDs. Hilarious. If you want to disregard notability guidelines that’s on you but I’m not worried or afraid of you, thanks. SK2242 (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2021 (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.