Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unitrans RT3572

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 merge to Unitrans. Consider bundling similar lots in the future. See first AfD of lot for precedent. (non-admin closure) czar · · 02:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unitrans RT3572

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

Individual vehicles do not need own page surely? Possibly merge with Unitrans? Note as previous AFD. Tom the Tomato ^Talk Pending namechange to Aycliffe. 15:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, Non notable stuff that would be better merged to Unitrans -
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:41, 17 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 22. Snotbot t • c » 07:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We're supposed to have an entry on every bus that's ever driven? This vehicle is not notable, there's no reason given why it might be notable, and none of the sources meet WP:RS. The company's use of ex-London buses is discussed in general terms in the Unitrans page, and nothing here needs to be merged: it's indiscriminate information. As far as I'm aware the general consensus is that an article on a bus company shouldn't be listing every vehicle the company has operated. Is this a likely search term, or rather a more likely term than Unitrans? Should it be redirected if the main Unitrans page doesn't discuss this bus? Not convinced a redirect is needed. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:12, 22 August 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.