Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unitrans RT4735

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 · · 03:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unitrans RT4735

(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. 15:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some individual vehicles are notable, this is not one of them. Run-of-the-mill, generic bus with precisely zero notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:13, 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!*} 02:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, sources fail to meet WP:RS, indiscriminate information. The company's fleet is discussed in general terms at Unitrans and we don't have to list every bus they own. Redirect if you like but not sure it's necessary. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Unitrans because standalone articles for individual public transportation vehicles aren't even remotely necessary. DavidLeighEllis DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:56, 27 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.