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 merge to Borealis Exploration. WheelTug has established enough notability to have its own article, this has not. Therefore, the best course of action here is a merge as discussed below. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 15:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chorus Motors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The article seems to be entirely unverified promotional claims. I can find nothing on the web after 2010; nor any investor data after that year DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm inclined to say Delete, notability of the subject of the article is not established and the tone is unencyclopaedic. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or at least redirect to the parent company. Why would we delete entirely a subject when we have an article on its parent company Borealis Exploration Limited? Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge this and WheelTug another subsidiary to the parent Borealis Exploration. It is not clear why this is a PLC rather than a private limited company, but I doubt we need an article on each subsidiary. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article seems to be entirely unverified promotional claims. MatsTheGreat (talk) 10:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge There is not much there, maybe just 3-4 sentences that could be reliably sourced but it is a legitimate subsidiary. Wall Street Journal, Businessweek -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:24, 4 November 2013 (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.