Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thurmaston 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 Both Userfied by User:Fatty2k10. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

=[[Thurmaston Bus]]=

:{{la|Thurmaston Bus}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Thurmaston Bus}})

:{{la|Coachmaster (bus_company)}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Coachmaster (bus_company)}})

Non notable (ex)Bus Company, no real sources to see at all beyond incidental mentions and single mention in "Leicester Mercury". With no real sources, the article also constitutes an Original Research. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment: I'm not really convinced either way with notability here, but if this is kept it would probably be best off merged with the equally poor article on the closely-related Coachmaster company. While there might just be enough to justify one article, there certainly isn't enough for two. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

:*I've also nominated Coachmaster for discussion here because the arguments for keeping/deleting are similar - and either a deletion of both or merge of both seem more likely that keeping of both, Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

:*Note: This debate was closed as Userfy two days ago, but the close did not account for the second nominated article - and, indeed, the second nominated article remained tagged. I asked the editor to revert his/her close, to no response - so I've reverted the close and re-opened the debate. Could the relisting/reviewing admin add a day or two to account for that closed day? Thanks. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

::*My response was to close the Thurmaston Bus debate and keep another one open on the same page for the Coachmaster. The nominator, User:Stuart.Jamieson did not revert it and what I did was correct. Rcsprinter (rap) 16:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

:::*I was quite busy last night (as I am today) so did not ask you to re-open nor did I revert - I had time to edit the rationale for Coachmaster but not enough time to read up on the appropriate policy regarding linked AfD's that have been partially closed early. As such I was not approving or disapproving of the way you reopened, I still haven't read up on it so still defer judgement. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

::::*Well, it's moot - The second article was userfied as well. So now it's closed for real, all nominated articles, etc. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

: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.