Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Total Car Parks Limited
Appearance
- 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)
- Total Car Parks Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (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)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Keep, Utterly pointless nomination!, Article clearly passes GNG!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:01, 2 February 2014 (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.