Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Alexander Coachbuilders

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) Gongshow ^Talk 04:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Alexander Coachbuilders[edit]

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

No indication of WP:notability. Only source is not found. Google searches provide few hits and nothing to establish notability. noq (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep. A publicly listed company with over 80 years of history, for much of it one of the largest bus manufacturers in the world as well as operating large numbers of other businesses, was always likely to have rather more coverage than this article's state would suggest. Although the vast majority of it is offline (industry sources, for instance, have written hundreds of thousands of words about this company down the years), sample sources that I can link to include: [1], [2], [3] and many more about its successors (e.g. [4], [5]). Passes WP:CORP by a massive margin - I'd be interested to see what Google searches the nominator tried... Alzarian16 (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's frankly difficult to believe that the nominator really did hunt for sources. There are plenty of interesting immediate hits on Google Books, Google Scholar and Google News (archives obviously). These include a government report on the company [6], a discussion of the company in the British Parliament [7], a paper that discusses some of the company's technologies [8], thorough coverage of the company's operations in daily news organization from the trivial [9] [10] to the more substantial [11] to the more dramatic [12]. And this is just a fraction of what I get on the first page of hits in Google Books/Scholar/News. Pichpich (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per references in the article and discussed above. AllyD (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note also existence of various "Alexander's Buses Remembered" and a forthcoming book (not one of these Wikipedia knockoffs as far as I can tell): "Alexander's Buses: Fife, Midland, Northern" (ISBN 0711035520). AllyD (talk) 08:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep - a famous company with a rich history. A most strange AFD nomination IMHO. We have tens of thousands of articles on Z-list celebs, weather girls and obscure comic characters, yet a venerable and well-established company gets AFDd. Wikipedia needs to seriously re-scope if it wants to be taken seriously as an encyclopaedia. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – although it could certainly use a fair bit of fleshing out, considering the topic. Useddenim (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the few British bus manufacturers still in business. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Keep and a {{trout}} for the nominator, per all of the reasons above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep why would this not be notable? MilborneOne (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable predecessor company to notable successor companies. Although most ghits are not especially substantial, there are an avalanche of them, and the article's sourcing has been improved to reflect them. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient RS coverage -- where coverage is less substantial, we are allowed to consider the number of rs articles covering a subject.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2012 (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.