- 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The result was Withdrawn - Should've done a bit more research before presuming & nominating. -
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- AMK Group (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)
non notable bus company, Fails WP:GNG & WP:CORP -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -Davey2010T 00:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -Davey2010T 00:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -Davey2010T 00:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -Davey2010T 00:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it fail those guidelines when there's a in-depth source about the company in the article? --Oakshade (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no in-depth source whatsoever - Ref 1 doesn't work, & at the time time of nomming Ref 2 didn't work neither ..., Anyway part from 2 I've found nothing for notability ...- →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So just because you can't see the reference linked from the article, you presumed it wasn't an acceptable one to pass WP:GNG?--Oakshade (talk) 03:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no in-depth source whatsoever - Ref 1 doesn't work, & at the time time of nomming Ref 2 didn't work neither ..., Anyway part from 2 I've found nothing for notability ...- →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Firstly this AfD is flawed as the nom based there assessment that this failed WP:GNG due to their presumption that one of the sources in the article wasn't satisfactory as it was a dead link. WP:AFD and WP:GNG state very clearly that if sources exist but are not available online or yet placed in the article, that is not a bases for AfD. The source that the nom said was a "dead link" is here. It even has a Bloomberg Businessweek profile. [1]--Oakshade (talk) 03:27, 12 September 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.