Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Thames Gateway Development Corporation

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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

London Thames Gateway Development Corporation[edit]

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

ORGANISATION IS NOW DEFUNCT AND ARTICLE WILL BE DELETED Russianhouse (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 25. Snotbot t • c » 22:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The stated reason for deletion would not justify deletion. The fact that an organization is now defunct does not mean that Wikipedia should not have an article about it. Notability is not temporary. If this organization never was notable, that would be a reason to support deletion, but I don't know whether it has or has not been notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cursory News and Books search shows plenty of reliable sources. DoctorKubla (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. As per Metropolitan90. There are plenty of reliable sources, but I agree that the article needs more of them. ~dee^(talk?) 08:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' I'll try to source it today, as well as update it with latest developments. ~dee^(talk?) 08:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -- Even if defunct, this quango did exist, and no dount had important functions. We have hundreds of articles on defunct bodies. Its abolition is no reason for the deletion of the article. The article certainly needs editing to update its text. I presume the situation is similar to Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation, which is to be merged to Thurrock Borough Council. The article needs information as to how the subject is to be wound up and what body is to take over its assets. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there appear to be secondary sources on it. I have tagged it as needing secondary sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but update. Jarvis Sherbourne (talk) 17:10, 1 April 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.