Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Full-size bus

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. Any redirect is an editorial decision. If anyone wants to merge this, here is the article in its unsourced entirety, written by Nopetro (talk · contribs): "A full-size bus (also called a plenibus) is a classification of buses which are identified as longer than midibuses, this is, more than 11 metres (36 ft 1 in)."  Sandstein  09:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Full-size bus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Bit silly to have a stub article about this. Maybe it could be redirected or merged to bus, but pointless stub about nothing, really. Rcsprinter (speak) @ 09:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Might as well redirect to the main article on buses, this is a pointless stub Seasider91 (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does this even warrant a redirect? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I dispute that this is even true. The article cites zero sources, and I can find zero sources (outwith hundreds of Wikipedia mirrors on the WWW and some unrelated Latin) that even use the word "plenibus" let alone define what one is. This is completely unverifiable and appears to be simply not the case at all. There's stuff to be written about the National Transit Database no doubt, but this made up hokum isn't it, nor would it be written up in this way. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Might actually qualify for a G5, even though it has been around for quite some time. Delete regardless, per the usual GNG/V standard. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Not so fast, deletionists. The term seems to carry some weight: I found a couple of reports from the UK that discuss handicap accessibility on buses, including this category: this is legit, and the term is used loosely in this report. Full-size bus registrations for 1975-2005 are listed here, and US use of the term is found here and here. This mentions the full-size bus in Latin America, though loosely. The first full-size bus was apparently made by Büssing in 1923. A full-size bus may set you back a quarter of a million bucks, and it can cost twice as much per kilometer as a mini-bus. Should I go on? Oh, "plenibus" isn't much, but "Planibus" has some currency. I happily await my ARS barnstar. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "plenus" and "planus" have very different meanings, of course. Note that two of your Google pages are the National Transit Database stuff that I was talking about, which would be wildly lop-sided to the point of ridicule to divide up in this way as you can see from the books; and another three are inaccessible in my part of the world. Uncle G (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I accept your apology. Drmies (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the main article on buses. Does not qualify for its own article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • BMK, it's on. Next time you're crossing the street, be wary of that minibus with the tainted windows. Hey, can I drop a note on the ARS page, or is that canvassing these days? Should a note be left by someone who votes "delete"? Should I ask Scotty Wong to act as go-between? Shall I leave a tearful message on Jimbo's talk page? Drmies (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, I gotta know what the windows are "tainted" with before I know how quickly I should run away! (Also wondering if you could recommend a good tear-server - whenever I try to leave a tearful message over the Internet my keyboard shorts out.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:DUE and the sources presented by Drmies. A merge to bus would suggest that the same be done for other bus classifications, and that would give undue weight there. Just because it's a stub doesn't mean it shouldn't be retained in its own article. Are bus specialists more likely to improve on the encyclopedic coverage of this topic if it's just merged? If not, then a merge wouldn't achieve anything in terms of improving the encyclopedia AFAICS. -- Trevj (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh dear. You've fallen for it hook, line, and sinker. An unfortunately not tearful note has been duly left at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 121#Sockpuppets on buses. Uncle G (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. I'll take a closer look. -- Trevj (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I stand by my !vote. We're discussing the notability of the subject of the article, and I don't think it's especially relevant to suggest a term should be effectively discounted on the identity of the creator.

    1. a full-size bus requires a roundabout of 26 m outside diameter and 14 m inside diameter, whilst a small bus can negotiate a normal mini-roundabout.^[1]
    2. The Continentals are coming to terms with minibuses and midibuses ... carrying only half or even quarter the number of passengers normally accomodated in a full-size bus.^[2]
    3. Non-preferred alternative term for standard bus (according to the Public Works and Government Services Canada)^[3]
    4. where a full-sized single deck bus was not needed or not suitable (maybe Lincoln City Transport)^[4]
    5. Plenty of obvious notability on the sizing of vehicles in general (which may help to put the use of this term by sources which specifically use it into context), e.g. MBTC FR 1054-1 w.r.t "large school bus"^[5]
    6. Generic sizes for many different classes of vehicle are used in software for swept path analysis: engineers need to demonstrate that various design vehciles can be accommodated by their road layouts --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevj (talk • contribs) 22:58, 8 December 2012

• Delete (possibly after some merging). The question of what is full-size will potentially vary from country to country according to national legislation on vehical lengths. This is probably about a European standard maximum. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2012 (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.