Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roadway Services

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 17:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roadway Services

This is a sub-stub whose inclusion perfectly illustrates the need to explain: where; when; why; whom etc in an article that is to be considered encylopaedic. Delete unless someone can quickly provide answers. Eddie.willers 03:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Massive corporation, with extensive google presence ([1]). Recent name change (see [2]). Major political contributor (see [3]). Etc. Serviceable stub which will be expanded eventually. Chick Bowen 04:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I take your point but my central problem is that this stub neglects to even tell us WHERE this company is located - after all this time on the cleanup list! How can you be certain it does not refer to another 'Roadway Services' that formerly owned the companies mentioned? Hmmm...? (Unsigned comment by Eddie.willers - Chick Bowen 04:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC))
    • It seems unlikely that the same companies would be owned by two different umbrella corps with the same name. . . but anyway, yeah, it's a sub-stub. It's borderline. There's not that much to say. But by the standards of WP:CORP it's sufficiently notable. Oh, and I put in the location. Chick Bowen 04:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand as per WP:CORP. Notable company with significant history. Capitalistroadster 05:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Note that WP:CORP is a very new suggestion, and has not yet had any discussion, and nor has it been edited by anyone apart from its creator. That does not diminish its value, but is important to bear in mind nevertheless. -Splash^talk 13:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. If the author finds the subject so uninteresting as to not say in the article why it's interesting, then I'm not usually interested. But the info in this AfD needs to be added to the article post-haste. -Splash^talk 13:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Alf ^melmac 19:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Articles without a category are too easy to miss by those who might have the knowledge to improve the article. I added a few. Vegaswikian 05:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep ··gracefool |☺ 18:55, 25 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.