Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armoured 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 keep. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 07:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Armoured bus

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

Fails WP:Notable. Although the article establishes that it is possible to armor a bus, and it has been done now and then, there is no evidence that this has been recognized as a notable topic by secondary sources -- bringing together WWI troop transport vehicles, modern anti-terrorism buses, and prisoner transport buses as the article does. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete as nominator says this appears to be a conflating of different instances of admitting a transport vehicle. The examples should be under armoured personnel carrier, vehicle armour etc. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- saberwyn 07:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At the bottom of the article, there is a box with many kinds of buses that one could also argue are not notable. The armoured bus is definitely more notable, for its pervasive use as urban troop transport in high-risk areas, especially the absurd fact that in some places in the world, there is a necessity for armoured school buses, as if they are legitimate targets for any insurgent/militant. --Shuki (talk) 09:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. Flayer (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appear to be plenty of sources which mention or discuss armoured buses, I'm not sure where the claim of no notability has come from. Seems perfectly encyclopaedic to have an article on the history and practice of armoured buses. Vehicle armour is mostly about the types and technologies of armour rather than the practice of applying it to specific vehicles, while armoured personnel carrier deals with the concept of 'armoured fighting vehicles designed to transport infantry to the battlefield.' Given that these buses are mostly used in a civilian context, a merge is not appropriate. Benea (talk) 11:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Each source seems to be about individual instances of armored buses. I don't see any source discussing them as a whole. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you got the idea that that qualifies as a fail of the GNG? The GNG confirms that the subject 'need not be the main topic of the source material'. Benea (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found plenty of reliable sources. Seems to be a notable topic. Marokwitz (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Benea's google link. Haus^Talk 17:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The substantial number of RS refs reflect notability, when one looks at the specific articles.. One suggestion -- I would change the name of the article to the US spelling, and make the English spelling a redirect, as the US spelling seems to be the more typical one.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who changes the spelling is risking getting this on their talk page Template:Uw-lang :-) --Shuki (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable. SL93 (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I'm not entirely sure that this is succifently distinct from an armored car to merit its own article, but I'm willing to give it a chance to grow. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:07, 14 September 2011 (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.