Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stagecoach London

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stagecoach London

"Stagecoach Group is a big company, it rightly has its own article, and it has many regional activities - but do we really need an article on each region?" This article already existed, but the same logic applies to this as the ones currently being created. All of the info can be found at the external link. Sonic Mew 22:27, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect if all the information can be found at Stagecoach Group. Without context encyclopedia articles are just Yellow Pages entries. --Wetman 22:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually these services are run by London coach companies that just use the Stagecoach brand and facilities. I don't see any harm in having a stub for this, it could grow to be quite a big article, which is frankly unlikely to happen if merged with Stagecoach Group. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow to expand. Don't really understand the concept of "do we really need articles". Kappa 00:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow to expand. I agree with Kappa above. If we were to delete articles on subsidiary companies, which are distinctly different in operation and, more importantly, history, then the same principle applies to the likes of Cadillac, Buick, Chevrolet...why don't we just delete them or redirect them back to General Motors? The Stagecoach corporate article is a background and detail on the corporate firm, the subsidiary articles (of which there are several) contain, or have the potential to, far more information on the history of the local company rather than it's parent group. As has been said, it's doing no harm.--Ayrshire--77 07:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article already contains information which would be inappropriate/lost in the Stagecoach Group article. -- Chris j wood 10:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Un focused 04:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've put it in category:transport in London. I don't think this would have been nominated if this was an indepedent company, but this detail is better on its own than cluttering up the main article, which should provide a corporate overview. CalJW 23:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.