Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devon and Cornwall Railways

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 no consensus. Opinion is about evenly split on whether this meets WP:GNG. It's difficult to know where the dividing line is between, Rail cruft and being very inclusive on railroads, and the participants in this discussion did not come to any agreement on that. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Devon and Cornwall Railways

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

Rail cruft - no secondary sources, other than a report from BBC News. Non-notable. Nordic Nightfury 11:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 11:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 11:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 11:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 11:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 11:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 11:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added to Iowa and USA delsort categories due to its parentage. Nordic Nightfury 11:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Is an actual mainline rail operator. Besides the BBC News article that the nom already mentioned, it was easy to find more coverage on its operations and administration from The Herald (Plymouth) and Rail Magazine. [1][2]--Oakshade (talk) 04:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ive cleaned this up a little bit, some bits were about railways in devon and cornwall generally and not about the company of whom is the subject of this article. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to parent company where it is currently mentioned as literally none of this suggests any actual substance or significance than it simply bring a locally company, hence with expectations of local news stories and columns. SwisterTwister talk 01:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC is not "local" news coverage. --Oakshade (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer - It appears User:SwisterTwister is stalking and hounding me by showing up at AfDs I'm participating in just to ivote against me. I'll be happy to provide the evidence on another page upon request.--Oakshade (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor freight transporter, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 08:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There doesn't seem to be sufficient "significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time" as required by WP:N. The Plymouth Herald article mentioned by Oakshade doesn't even mention the company as far as I can see. Maybe a mention in Dartmoor Railway might be appropriate. —SMALL JIM 15:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in the BBC article (published in 2010) and Rail Magazine (published in 2013). The BBC article discusses the plan of Devon and Cornwall Railways (DCR) to reopen the Okehampton to Exeter Railway Line. The Rail Magazine provides significant coverage about DCR's history and projects. The two articles were published three years apart, demonstrating that DCR has received sustained attention. There is enough to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 05:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a sub-sub-sidiary and a minor one at that. I don't see sufficient coverage about the company itself to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. This BBC source is a tangential mention in the content of a railway line. And that too is a quote by a company employee (which doesn't satisfy WP:CORPIND). This Plymouth Herald source is a passing mention in a quote. None of this is significant coverage and certainly not enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have always been very inclusive on railroads, and I think we should be consistent. DGG ( talk ) 07:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, When you refer to "railroad", do you mean the rail company or the "rail route" itself? My impression was that routes (for example Dartmoor Railway) are notable and we have kept many of them. On the other hand, individual train operating companies are not notable on their own. In this case, Devon and Cornwall Railways is a train operating company and is actually a minor subsidiary of British American Railway Services. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The media coverage is there, if a bit light. But media coverage is not the only arbiter of notability. We need to remember why notability guidelines exist. There's a case to be made that a mainline UK operator is inherently notable (there aren't that many of them). Mcewan (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The company is actually a minor subsidiary of British American Railway Services. I doubt that would make it inherently notable enough for a separate article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. And I would perhaps be persuaded if the parent's article were more than a stub. Being a subsidiary does not inherently preclude notability. And from a quick look BARS has no more visibility than DCR. Perhaps neither of them are notable. They certainly are not in the narrow web-beauty-contest into which these discussions tend to degenerate. Mcewan (talk) 11:09, 9 December 2016 (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.