Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great British Mobility


 * 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Great British Mobility

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Company has been closed for a number of years, a new company completely unaffiliated with the original great british mobility group has since opened and this article causes confusion for customers of the new business. Article itself is not particularly notable and it is not in the public interest for the article to exist. Article also states the company was called great british mobility ltd when it was in fact called great british mobility group ltd. This is causing no end of confusion to an elderly customer base for the new great british mobility ltd company Spcoe (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 13.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 09:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 15:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 15:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep and split into two artuicles, one for the old company and one for the new. Once notable, always notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. This AfD is the nominator's first contribution. See Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Fail the new WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. None of the references are intellectually independent and appear to be mainly associated with company announcements, sponsorship and financial difficulties, all fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. While the comments of the nominator are a little suspicious regarding "causing confusion" and has not provided a rationale in line with policy or guidelines, I believe the topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 15:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 23:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Split and Keep It meets WP:GNG. Mia Watson (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep and discuss splitting on thetalk page. I don;t think it should be kept--we usually keep information of such straightforward succceor companies together in one article. Thitle ise t usually he newest, but could be the best known, as hee.  DGG ( talk ) 13:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Striker force Talk 20:32, 27 June 2018 (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.