Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorset Sprinter

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. Owning multiple bus routes does not appear in the notability guidelines, nor in policy, and the same applies to "it's important locally"; discounting these comments, consensus is clearly in favour of deletion. If you do not make arguments which cite policy, they will not be taken into account; AfD is not a vote. The weight of an argument is what is considered, not the weight of the emotion behind it. Ironholds (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dorset Sprinter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a non-notable bus company that operates one regular bus route from Ringwood to Southampton. Does not pass WP:COMPANY. Scottdrink (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Barring the addition of sources that do help establish notability, I don't see, after reviewing the current references, how this subject meets our notability standards. Drmies (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you expand on this please? I do not understand what you are saying. How can adding sources that help establish notability mean that the subject does not meet our notability standards? Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 21:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a bus operator that runs one single route. Minimac makes a remark below about what's generally deemed notable; I'm not aware of inherent notability for such a company, but I gladly stand corrected. But this one has only one route. It is entirely possible that the company, for one reason or another, generated interest in the press which would make it notable despite running only one route, but I didn't see that. Moreover, the links pointing to for instance council minutes are not evidence of the kind of interest that would make a subject notable. But I fear that you are misreading my comment; my apologies if I was not clear. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Bus operators that take multiple routes are generally notable. Also, there are published sources which relate to the subject, such as for example: this reference. Even though these references are nationally recognised, the whole article I think still meet the general notability guidelines. Minimac (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is much more to the company than what the nominator had said. That "one route" is actually part of the ongoing saga of the cross country link between Ringwood and Southampton, which has seen a number of operators have a go and then pull out. Dorset Sprinter have now ended that route. That route originally started running from Bournemouth to Southampton (via Ringwood), so it covers a wide area (about 25 miles across), so it's hardly insignificant and the company had serviced a lot of towns and villages. The company have operated other bus routes, and their first route brought in so little money that they gave up running it days after it started - this is against the rules and the company were in trouble with the Traffic Commissioner. The company have been brought in front of the Traffic Commissioner in a public inquiry as well as they've been in trouble a few times. :There are a number of local sources, and there are national sources available, though work does need to be done. As it stands though, the article is well referenced, and I see no reason for it to be deleted. All that needs doing is establishing notability. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 21:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's kind of circular. Are you saying it's not notable now, though it's well referenced, but notability can be established? If so, please establish it, so that the articles passes WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Drmies (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It is worth noting that the nominator did PROD the article a week or so ago. The nominator has only a handful of edits, and their intent is questionable. Looking at their talk page, [1], they have at one time seemingly gone round randomly dePRODing article with no explanation, and when asked by an admin did not really explain their actions. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 21:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, and I saw that, but that does not mean that every single edit is suspicious. As a matter of fact, AfD is a common second step after a PROD is denied. Drmies (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep You state that the company is non-notable, but... the sources and references at the bottom of the article say otherwise. If the article needs expanded, then let's do that. Delete isn't a fixall - if there is more to this than what's in the article, let's add it. Dusti^*poke* 00:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please indicate where any of those references state that the bus operator is notable, leaving out such 'references' as this letter to the editor. The only reference to a secondary and presumably reliable source is this, a sympathetic article in the local paper. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's take a simple google search. Dusti^*poke* 04:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed. Nothing to show for. I urge you to have another look at WP:RS. The bus line's Facebook page and omnibuses.blogspot are not reliable sources. Besides, 3,630 hits is really nothing (my username, in quotes, scores twice as many). More revealing is a Google search more closely aimed at finding reliable sources: this Google News search. Drmies (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The only secondary reliable source is a local paper? Don't think so. What about the Buses Magazine coverage? Not only secondary and independent, but non-local too. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • So this this this this this and this (need I keep going?) don't show significant coverage? Dusti^*poke* 13:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Eeh, much as I want this kept... two of those (museumstuff and ireference) are Wikipedia mirrors, one's a Commons category, one (World News) doesn't actually talk about them, one (Fotopic) isn't generally felt to be reliable, and the local news piece is already in the article. So no, they don't show significant coverage, but the topic as a whole does. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<--Thanks Alzarian. Most of what a regular Google search produces does not count as reliable--and that a Commons category is no evidence of notability should go without saying. Above you mentioned the Buses Magazine reference. That's not available online, apparently, but I note that the article is only one page long--it can't be a very in-depth discussion. And I wonder: what do you mean with "the topic as a whole [shows significant coverage]"? Drmies (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Never mind the alleged "questionable" intent of the nom - not being a mindreader, I have no more notion of what that might be than anyone else - let's take this on its merits. The GNG requires that multiple reliable sources discuss the subject in "significant detail." I don't see it. Of all the sources presented, the Southern Daily Echo is the only one that qualifies, and the claim of an article of less than 300 words to constitute "significant detail" is threadbare. That doesn't suffice. "The topic as a whole" shows significant coverage? Which topic is that, please, and what does that have to do with this subject?  Ravenswing  18:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Mention in 'omnibus' specialty blog and so on doesn't count. EEng (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the page. I live in Ringwood. This company were very important locally, and the cessation of their operation to Southampton at the end of December has had a profound effect on the local community. With regards to WP:COMPANY - one of the worst written pieces of text I have ever read - from what I can make of it Sprinter seem to fall within that too. The Daily Echo source is perfectly acceptable. I've never heard of Buses Magazine, but it sounds like a valid publication. The blog is reliable. It's written by the man who owns Velvet, another local company who used to run to Ringwood, and has all its facts correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.101.184 (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.