Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanson's Local Buses

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hanson's Local Buses

Hanson's Local Buses (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)

This subject does not seem to meet WP:N or WP:CORP. Charles (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - I was actually gonna nominate this months ago but completely forgot so thank god someone did!, Anyway can't find any evidence of notability so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 17:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Castroex's additions, I'm not overly convinced on keeping but meh sources have miraculously been found and added. –Davey2010^Talk 14:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Revert to original edits Article had sources with verifiable facts prior to deletion of 90% of content, including references to local press reports over initiatives that the bus company had implemented. I'm sure there are a number of other bus operators on WP that have less references than this article had prior to the mindless vandalism that had occurred. User:Dudleybus User talk:Dudleybus 23:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello Article Creator, Timetables aren't reliable sources, When you created this article the first source you added was a link to someones bus images[1] .... so this looks to have been doomed from the start, As a keep !voter If you want this kept you need to provide sources (other than timetables), Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 00:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Davey2010. I did also at one stage add local press sources to the article which got stripped out. I have since found further press articles from two West Midlands news papers concerning this company, one about a charity initiative that they did and one regarding an inquest of an accident which a death was involved. I was unable to add that to the article as I have been unable to access wiki due to personal reasons. User:Dudleybus User talk:Dudleybus 00:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I shouldn't assumed bad faith there with my comment so have struck anyway there doesn't seem to be much info on the company but If you're able to find a reasonable amount I'd consider my !vote, I had found these [2][3] but other than that I'd found naff all , Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 01:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep secondary cites added, if an operator is noteworthy enough to be the subject of a feature article in a trade magazine, then noteworthy enough for a Wiki article. Castroex (talk) 06:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find any secondary sources please enlighten us. Without them there is no point saying "Keep".Charles (talk) 10:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)  Done Castroex (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mention in a specialist trade magazine is equivalent to a village sports team getting mention in the local paper. It does not show the wider coverage needed to meet WP:N or WP:CORPDEPTH.Charles (talk) 09:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mean to moan but "Keepers" are expected to provide sources otherwise the !vote counts for nothing here. –Davey2010^Talk 12:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC) (Struck as article now has cites –Davey2010^Talk 12:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep Delete Amend vote based on additional information since added to article. Astbam (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meet notability standards. Rcsprinter¹²³ (relate) @ 20:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per reasons above Transasia07 (talk) 04:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While not the biggest company in town, not the corner store either, so keep. Octo45 (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Castroex Looloo18 (talk) 02:03, 7 April 2015 (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.