Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Easylink


 * 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   delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

London Easylink

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As per previous Limebourne AfD. Short-lived, long defunct bus operator. Redirect to London Central or London General. Aycliffe Talk Previously Tommietomato. 15:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 22.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  16:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Theopolisme ( talk )  01:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 *  Merge DELETE - very short-lived non notable company, Fails WP:GNG & WP:CORP. -


 * →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  00:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete There are no sources other than Wikipedia for verification. Belatedly signed at--Charles (talk) 09:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge Some sources exist but not enough for an article. But why London Central as the target? Its parent company was Durham Travel Services, which has a hugely inaccurate (and unsourced) article but is definitely notable (,  and more offline), so let's take the opportunity to make two crap articles into one decent one. Merge with Durham Travel Services.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.183.237 (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * London Central is the target as this is its current form. Merging with DTS would just be silly as that too is defunct. Saying that I will also AfD it.  ayc li ffe talk 07:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Edit: I've just had a look at the article and it suggests that DTS was Harris Bus, not London Easylink.  ayc li ffe talk 07:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but that article's wrong - check out the sources I linked to (whoever created that article seems to have just made up its content). There is no "current form", it collapsed - redirecting to a company that happens to run its routes now is pointless since we're never likely to mention Easylink in it. 81.178.183.237 (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete -- I cannot see how a bus company that operated two route for a few year until it went bust in 2002 can possibly be notable. One might redirect to a list of London bus companies (if we had one listing it) but not merge, save possibly minimally.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2013 (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.