Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Total Car Parks Limited: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 11:34, 6 February 2022

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Total Car Parks Limited

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

Car Park company in a single city. As expected, local refs only. As also expected, approved at AfC DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per satisfying Wikipedia:GNG. Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Several of the sources specifically contradict the "in a single city" claim that is a key point of this deletion nomination. (They use phrases like "across the country" and "nationwide".) If the supposed "single city" concerned is Manchester, it is worth noting that Manchester is not in Essex nor in East Anglia, thus none of the sources can be considered "local". Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see issues here that need community review, and the vague wave to "local refs" and "single city" has been refuted. Unscintillating (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Utterly pointless nomination!, Article clearly passes GNG!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:01, 2 February 2014 (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.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
+:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).  No further edits should be made to this page.''
+<!--Template:Afd top
+Note:  If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]].  When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
+The result was    '''keep'''. ([[Wikipedia:non-admin closure|non-admin closure]]) [[User:DavidLeighEllis|DavidLeighEllis]] ([[User talk:DavidLeighEllis|talk]]) 02:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 ===[[Total Car Parks Limited]]===
-{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|O}}
 :{{la|Total Car Parks Limited}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Total Car Parks Limited|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 30#{{anchorencode:Total Car Parks Limited}}|View log]]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks">[http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Total_Car_Parks_Limited Stats]</span>)
@@ Line 11: / Line 17: @@
 * '''Keep''' per satisfying [[Wikipedia:GNG]]. Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Several of the sources specifically contradict the "in a single city" claim that is a key point of this deletion nomination. (They use phrases like "across the country" and "nationwide".) If the supposed "single city" concerned is Manchester, it is worth noting that Manchester is not in Essex nor in East Anglia, thus none of the sources can be considered "local". [[User:Arthur goes shopping|Arthur goes shopping]] ([[User talk:Arthur goes shopping|talk]]) 09:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 *'''Keep'''&nbsp; I don't see issues here that need community review, and the vague wave to "local refs" and "single city" has been refuted.&nbsp; [[User:Unscintillating|Unscintillating]] ([[User talk:Unscintillating|talk]]) 03:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''', Utterly pointless nomination!, Article clearly passes GNG!. [[User:Davey2010|<span style="color:blue;">'''''→Davey'''''</span><span style="color:blue;">'''''2010→'''''</span>]][[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color:orange;">'''''→Talk to me!→'''''</span>]] 04:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>