Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Old London Underground Company


 * 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.  Sandstein  09:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The Old London Underground Company

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article appears to largely exist to give the company "a reputation", as it does not contain anything notable (the legacy project is TfLs, Dragons Den has its own article as does Down Street etc). The company has an active proposal to strike off it against it, and appears to be non trading with no accounts ever filed.

Appears to be nothing more than a vanity page for a company. King Rikk (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 23:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 23:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. If any of the proposals associated with this company happen then it is possible it might be notable at that time - although it is most likely that it would be the tube station article that would be expanded in the first instance, with an article about whatever venture is housed there following if necessary. It seems unlikely to me that the company will be notable enough for more than a redirect to a section of the article about the venture or venue without some notability independent of that or operating multiple ventures. Thryduulf (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It does seem to have been put there just to puff the company, but the idea from the company seems to be (slowly) going forward in another fashion; does that make it notable enough? David Landon Cole (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It might make the idea notable, but it doesn't make the company notable unless there is substantial independent coverage of the company and I'm just not seeing that. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as too soon at best, nothing else convincing of independent notability. SwisterTwister   talk  05:05, 8 April 2016 (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.