Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keolis / SNCF West Coast

Keolis / SNCF West Coast

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

Non Notable Company formed for the purpose of bidding for a franchise which it failed to win. Only passing mentions in sources and only temporary coverage not permanent notability. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also shell companies formed as part of the bidding process with only trivial mentions in sources:

Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect all to InterCity West Coast, which directly deals with the award of this franchise. Not much you can say other their bid existing, but they are all plausible search terms. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I considered whether they were plausible redirects before suggesting deletion; Google Insight shows no searches for any of these companies. Our own web traffic statistics show little activity beyond web crawler for these articles (except yesterday when all spiked due to my tagging) - Searching is more likely to be directed either at the franchise or at the relevant parent company rather than at any of these shell companies. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not temporary. There is nothing worth merging and now that the usefulness of these entities is past they will be unlikely search terms as far as our general readership are concerned. Anyone with a specialist interest in finance and franchises will be looking to other specialist sources and they will get more from a google search anyway.--Charles (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to InterCity West Coast - redirects are cheap, and redirecting actually takes up less server space than deleting the articles does. At the risk of invoking WP:OTHERSTUFF, Predator plane is considered a valid redirect for General Atomics MQ-1 Predator, but I doubt it gets very many hits at all; hits should not be considered a measure of whether or not to keep or redirect or delete. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet Predator plane is far more plausible redirect if someone can't remember the exact designation of the plane but does remember it was called Predator, these have more complicated names than either the franchise or their respective parents and are unlikely to be used as a search term. Also As an exact search term "Predator plane" averages 40-50 searches per day on Google - and that search takes them directly to General Atomics MQ-1 Predator rather than the redirect where as these shell companies get none. Additionally it seems odd to suggest that an very obscure company name should be a redirect to a franchise they had no other interaction with other than submitting a bid. These names are very obscure synonyms for parent companies and would probably be eligible for speedy deletion as a redirect in that capacity let alone as a redirect to the franchise. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to InterCity West Coast -- However, the article does not indicate who has been the successful bidder. The article needs to be updated to make that clear. Whether we should retain the redirects or delete them I am not sure. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]