Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InterCity West Coast

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, per

WP:SNOW. Redrose64 (talk) 19:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

InterCity West Coast

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

This is already covered in the Virgin Trains article. There is no need to confuse matters by having two articles that cover the same topic. Beeshoney - Don't Google it, Woogle it! (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see why the franchise and current operator are not both notable enough for an article, like a group company and susidiaries can all have articles. There are 7 franchise articles, so this is a wider issue than this one - if this is deleted surely all 7 should go? Rwendland (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article will give a history of the West Coast franchise post Virgin Trains tenure, the Virgin Trains article will only give a history up until its termination date, currently December 2012.D47817 (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball(?) Keep. This is about the franchise, not who paid to run it for (some period of time). This differentiation is more significant in the case of Virgin Trains; which held the XC and ICWC franchises simultaneously, and operated them as as one organisation under one brand for that period. —Sladen (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A very notable topic. See eg this article in The Independent for 4 October. Virgin Trains was only one of four bidders for the renewal. If there is duplication, it should be removed from the Virgin Trains article which should concentrate only on the aspects specific to that company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJHingston (talk • contribs) 22:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fiasco hasn't been sorted out yet and the franchise system is set to run again.C. 22468 Talk to me 07:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A franchise and a train operating company are different things. MRSC (talk) 08:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Process comment to an admin: Can we invoke Wikipedia:Deletion process#Snowball clause and get this AfD closed early please. This is in the news (was linked from Google News front page), and having the AfD banner at article top does not look good to new WP readers. Rwendland (talk) 10:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Having a deletion template in an article that many people will be reading to get some background on the current incarnation of the
Phil Bridger (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep A very important and informative article particularly in light of the current dispute. StalwartUK (talk) 11:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:06, 4 October 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.