Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transdev York

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 merge to Transdev. MBisanz ^talk 23:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transdev York

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

Constant spam and non notable operator Tom the Tomato (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Transdev. Spamming is not a reason for deletion but there is no need to maintain a page for each branch of the company. Cut out the primary source material and merge what has secondary sources.--Charles (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems important, but very few sources can be found, possibly because it's recent. I'd prefer merging to Transdev Blazefield, where it is a more significant part, rather than to the multinational company where it wouldn't have much more than a mention of its name. Peter James (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge we had another AFD on a bus company recently. I note we also have navboxes on them. Like High Schools, I susoect that this is a class of articles that it will be diffiocult to suppress, due to the number of users who are potential editors. Nevertheless I am dubious as to their merits. I will thus support [[Peter James in his merge target of Transdev Blazefield as the British holding company, but the other five "operations" listed in that article will also need to be merged in to it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree.--Charles (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's likely that more sources can be found for the other companies, as they have existed for longer - all started before Transdev acquired Blazefield, and four of the five existed before Blazefield. There's even an article about a route operated by one of the companies, which has "Good article" status. Peter James (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2013 (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.