Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor bus operators in England (2nd nomination)

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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minor bus operators in England

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

Fails WP:GNG as there are no reliable secondary sources that discuss this group as a subject. Fails WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL and seems to be original research. This is no more encyclopedic than a list of small hotels or a list of pharmacies. These all provide a public service but are not of encyclopedic interest. Charles (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Unencyclopedic list that serves no purpose here IMO -

If each company were notable enough they'd have their own article. - Davey2010 T 21:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's now a policy that not only a list topic must be notable, but that each entry in a list must also meet WP:NOTABLE individually, then perhaps the nominator could refer us to it? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list specifically for non-notable items.--Charles (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep per previous AfD. Such a list has an obvious definition such that OR is no issue. If bus services in England are considered notable, I see no reason why this obviously relevant list isn't considered as an inevitable component of such coverage. Individual entries are unusually well sourced for such a list. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The hotel industry in England would be a notable subject but that does not mean we would keep a list of small hotels in England. There is no reason for these non-notable companies to get special treatment just because they run buses.--Charles (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Davey aycliffe^talk 11:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The information is not available elsewhere in Wikipedia and I don't see why the article should be deleted just to satisfy some narrow interpretation of the rules. Biscuittin (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not being available elsewhere in Wikipedia is not a reason for keeping it.--Charles (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, the page needs work but the list serves to mention all the operators which are not notable enough for their own article. I can see this being directly useful in someone's research - checking if a company exists, getting a list of the firms. There is no proper grounds for deletion. Rcsprinter (banter) @ 10:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How is WP:NOTDIR, a policy formed by community consensus, not "proper grounds" for deletion? Wikipedia is not a reliable source for research purposes.--Charles (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - ... it's not acting like a directory! Every time you nominate something saying WP:NOTDIR, I have to tell you this. Rcsprinter (rap) @ 15:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- List are useful for identifying missing articles. We have a regional list in List of bus operators of the United Kingdom. The criterion for inclusion here seems to be that they are too small to warrant having a WP article. Is a list of NN subjects worth having? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSC specifically contemplates such lists: "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of minor characters in Dilbert or List of paracetamol brand names." 24.151.116.25 (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Minor" is arbitrary here as it depends on whether an article exists or not, rather than objective criteria. Other types of list contain notable and non-notable entries, such as listed buildings or discographies. It's likely that coverage exists on the topic of bus operators, and companies that are only the subject of brief mentions within that coverage can be included, so I'd say merge to the other lists, but references need improvement - in its current state the list has no sources other than the companies' own sites, and many entries are without references. Coverage of pharmacies, and in some cases hotels, is often limited to directory entries or routine information such as opening times. Peter James (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the "minor" descriptor implies that this is always going to be a list of non-notable things, and as a result, the list is also going to be non-notable. If the majority of items on a list are notable, then the list is valid; in this case, no. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:49, 27 September 2013 (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.