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 delete. The arguments for delete have been made with reference to policies and guidelines, and I am seeing detailed analysis of how particular sources do not meet those requirements. The keep arguments on the other hand have tended to merely assert the company is notable without detailed argument. Where specific sources have been put forward there has been a failure to explain, with reference to guidelines, how they meet the requirements, and the claims have been refuted in detail. SpinningSpark 00:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Rail Services[edit]

Eastern Rail Services (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)

Does not meet notability for companies. This is a relatively small company, that owns rolling stock (railroad cars) that is rented out/leased to railways. Sourcing is the article is companieshouse, the company itself, and two short items on railexpress describing rental deals. I was unable to find much more on this company. Eostrix (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am trying to assume good faith, can I just double-check that there is no COI in requesting the deletion of this active spot-hire company, as it seems a bot odd that other companies of this type are listed - and this article is nominated for deletion within two minutes of creation. Neith-Nabu (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have COI regarding Eastern Rail Services or UK railways generally. I got to this article from Wikipedia:New pages patrol and assessed it against Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I nominated it 18 minutes after creation. The sources in the article do not establish notability, and I spent some time in searching for more sources prior to nominating.--Eostrix (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the confirmation. With this relating to a company in competition with other such companies who are already included in this encyclopedia I felt it was essential that a specific statement to that effect was needed over and above assuming it to be the case.

Although I'm not at all attached to this company or page, it has been created as a referenced stub article (under the provision for the creation of such pages - although flagged before tagged as such), with external refences, for the sake of completion of scope of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. This is a company that provides rolling stock to main line companies (as referenced) and heritage lines (as referenced). Sources for references are reputable, and, I believe, for the scale of the article are within boundaries. Neith-Nabu (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) requires significant coverage in multiple independent+reliable+secondary sources (WP:SIRS). None of the sources in the article at this time fulfill that. Companieshouse is not significant nor secondary. The company's website is not independent. The two railway express items are in a trade publication, are probably copies of PR, and are routine/standard transaction announcements. I haven't been able to find much more than what is in the article, and this sort of coverage is not sufficient for companies. If other spot-hire companies exhibit a similar level of coverage, perhaps they should be deleted as well.--Eostrix (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that you said you are not familiar with railway pages, but railway news publications are always used as sources for railway pages. Neith-Nabu (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can use them as a source, but the two railway express items are routine/standard transaction announcements. They don't count for WP:SIRS.--Eostrix (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I believe you can and that they are reports in secondary, reliable sources. So, as this is another circular inclusionist/deletionist debate that isn't going to lead anywhere, I suggest that we leave it at that and let others create a consensus. Neith-Nabu (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "SIRS" link is pretty rich. It says if a source is "in doubt" it is "better to exclude it". Lol. In AfD, most sources are in "doubt" by someone. Such is the nature of AfD. The mere existence of someone's doubt is not reason alone to delete. The doubt has to be reasonably explained and have support from others. -- GreenC 13:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see Eostrix saying that the source is "in doubt". He's saying that routine announcements (such as "new deal just signed" or "quarterly results") are not regarded as significant. The discussion should more correctly be whether the article is based on a routine announcement or not. Perhaps the author/journalist investigated and discovered these details or was informed by a third party. If you disagree with SIRS then you should argue for change at its Talk page rather than here. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 04:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, small article, with scope for improvement. Was able to find mentions in 4 separate secondary publications relatively quickly. Appears the nominators' search didn't extend beyond Google, sigh. Hopldoele (talk) 05:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, short article about rail services company, already sourced from limited number of reliable third-party sources, and with scope to develop and improve article in future. Neith-Nabu (talk) 07:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep; granted most sources stated are sorta notable, it needs more stable sources for it to be regarded as noteworthy. Its a good first start however. Nightfury 16:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep most train company news will be in specialist publications, as unless there is bad service or an accident this would not be in national press. The other rolling stock companies listed on Wikipedia have used the same publications as independent references. User talk:Davidstewartharvey 13:02, 3 June 2020

• Reality check: I realize there are railroad fans out there, and that some PR items have been added to the article, however all the sources we have in the article at the moment do not meet WP:SIRS - being primary or routine transactions in railway trade press. As a reality check, I did look in companies house: [1]. According to the company's latest annual report (30 June 2019, filed 31 March 2020), it has assets to the tune of 283,866 pounds (page 3), it meets a section 477 reporting exemption for small companies (page 4, requirements: [2]), and has ad average of 3 employees in 2018 and an average 1 employee in 2017 (page 6). This company does not appear to do much - it buys very old railroad stock and then rents it out - almost purely financial and on a small scale. Given this state of affairs, it is unlikely that there are in-depth, independent, reliable, secondary sources covering this very small company.--Eostrix (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Most articles are of no interest to most people, but if they are only of interest to a small percentage of readers and properly cited, don't see the problem. There are thousands of articles on what many would consider non-notable subjects. The two articles you added are fairly niche and not likely to attract the attention of most readers. Not a reason to delete though. Hopldoele (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The publications are more for enthusiasts than for trade. The two references with online links are routine and insignificant coverage; I don't know if the sources without online links are better. Peter James (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It seems that most of the Keep !voters are highlighting the "reliable", "secondary", "independent publications" attributes of the references and totally ignoring the requirements for significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. The references here are either entirely based on announcements (No Independent Content, fails ORGIND) or are run-of-the-mill extracts from Companies House. Doesn't even come close to meeting the criteria for notability. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Query - are these now kept open until lobbying for negative votes can be accomplished? Neith-Nabu (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response Infinitely more helpful if you addressed the point I've made? Can you provide me with just *one* single reference that meets the criteria for notability? HighKing⁺⁺ 10:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That has already been done by others. Neith-Nabu (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Thanks for at least replying. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable per WP:NTS. In addition as other editors have stated: WP:NEXIST. Lightburst (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • They don't meet NTS. The do not run rail services. It is not a major rail route or rail line. And it is not a train station. They are leasing the sidings (formerly overgrown with vegetation) to the side of Great Yarmouth railway station where they are storing old railway stock they purchase. This company buys old railway kit, stores it, and rents it out to railway services (both commercial and heritage lines). The operation, in total, employed 3 people in 2019 (per their annual report).--Eostrix (talk) 06:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Came here to say the same thing. NTS has no standing as a guideline and even if it did, this topic company does not meet the criteria as it doesn't provide transportation services. It is a supplier of "rolling stock" .. i.e. mainly carraiges. It is a supplier to the industry. You might as well measure "Tetley's Tea" against NTS since it is also a supplier to the rail industry. Also, taking you up on WP:NEXIST, please link to the best three sources you believe meets the criteria for notability because so far, the Keep !voters are all a bit vague on which guidelines/sources they are relying on for this topic. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you find that the subject does not meet the WP:NTS guideline, that is ok, because it does meet another guidelines for notability. We allow articles when a subject has met our GNG - and this subject meets WP:BASIC WP:GNG. As other editors have stated the article has non-primary WP:RSs and the article can be improved, making it WP:IMPERFECT. AfD is not clean up, and we serve out readers with such articles. Lightburst (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the acronyms you are linking to?! While Corporate personhood is a concept, it does not apply to Wikipedia policy in WP:BASIC (subsection in Wikipedia:Notability (people)). For corporations, such as this company, there is a separate guideline: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The analog to BASIC in this guideline is WP:ORGCRIT and WP:SIRS. Not a single source has been presented here that meets SIRS. All we have here is copies of the corporation's PR/announcements, the corporation itself, and companieshouse. Not a single source here meets: Significant+Independent+Reliable+Secondary that is required for corporations. As for our readership, WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:NOTYELLOW, WP:NOTPRESSRELEASE applies.--Eostrix (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You understand that I mean GNG and have stated that in my answer. You have made a common error in thinking that WP:N in addition to another guideline must be met. I will highlight the relevant portion of our notability guideline for you:

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

so there are not multiple hurdles for this subject. Just WP:N or one of the guidlelines you have cited. Apologies, I have wasted far too much time bantering about the notability of this subject. My time is better spent editing, and if I find time to improve this article i will do so. Lightburst (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to WP:NOTADVERTISING/WP:NOTPRESSRELEASE, WP:N explicitly states in WP:SNG: "Note that in addition to providing criteria for establishing notability, some SNGs also add additional restrictions on what types of coverage can be considered for notability purposes. For example, the SNG for companies and organizations specifies a very strict set of criteria for sources being considered".--Eostrix (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: To be clear what has just happened admin Spartaz closed this Afd with the comment "The result is delete". I challenged the lack of explanation on the close here: [3]. The closer responded with: [4] and seems to have silently re-opened the WP:AFD. (I do with people would leave a note or do a relist when this has happened rather than a silent re-open, otherwise peoples have to do forensics to work out whats going on). That said I welcome the re-open and reversal of close actions. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Interesting that someone would ignore the pretty clear consensus to keep and act as though this were their own private web site. If we had gatekeepers like these when we first started creating Wikipedia, the page would never have survived. What a shame Wikipedia is infested with them now. Yes, this is not a helpful comment, but I felt the need to register my contempt for certain type of people using Wikipedia for their own ego-boosts. Neith-Nabu (talk)

@Neith-Nabu The problem was not necessary the result but the failure to detailing the reasoning of arriving at the result which I would have expected in this case. In generally I would have expected the nom. as an NPP to have notability tagged the article, but its a mute point. To some degree you may have baited the nom., and they have responsed by shouting in bold all over the AfD which makes their arguments a pain to read. The cites have been poorly marked as to which require registration which is an issue. I remain unclear if this is totally separate from the Mid-Norfolk Railway but suspect it is to make a merge disruptive/undue; its now a different shape and would need bursting out. Its an article that is far easier to have around as if I want to ask about "eastern rail services" (e.g. who provided these air-braked coaches for the preservation event) then I've got some kind of answer. Also, Neith-Nabu, as you asked the nom about a coi can you confirm here you do not have a direct coi with ERS.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly confirm that I categorically have no interest or involvement with ERS. If I have baited the OP, then I half-heartedly apologise - but as OSD I will respond in kind to what I experience, and I don't think he has needed any encouragement to simply repeat the same comment again and again... For the record, this is a railway service company that, to my understanding, is nothing to do with the Mid-Norfolk Railway charitable trust, so placing this content there would be a non-starter in terms of accurate content. Neith-Nabu (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Ultimately WP's better with the article than without it. While its a company is ultimately a product/service and thats usually what gets notice. If a good merge target I'd go for that, but merging too early is usually a starter. Bumfrey will probably be ok as source if I access it sunday, though the scribd link needs binning.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This has just been closed and re-opened again per history. Please leave this for an experienced admin to relist with advisory comments or close with comments. I say this because I am strongly of the belief any close/re-open should be visible without resulting to viewing history. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There's a very good chance that a closing admin will once again Delete this topic, reason being, if Keep !voters continue to ignore the points made by the Delete !voters on the lack of references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Since this AfD has now been reopened, take it as an opportunity to provide new references (or justify the current ones by rebutting the arguments above). HighKing⁺⁺ 21:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict): Probably one of the better points made, and the point that could and probally should have usefully been made on a WP:RELIST after the re-open(ings). Unfortunately it was inappropriate for you or I as participants or potential participants to do such a relist. And if the original closer had made those points I would not have made a challenge to the closer. (From the closers comment on his talk page I was actually prepping a DRV until I eventually twigged the silent re-opening). Pragmatically it takes a fairly good argument to keep this, and I have thoughts on the bones of one, and given recent web hits we may be WP:TOOSOON, but frankly the embellishments of cites are not brilliant, nobody has presented a WP:THREE of any description, and until I get "off the road" and back to base Sun/Mon there's no danger of me looking at it; and even then I'm not sure I will because I have a lot of ball juggling. If it goes, and it probably will, I'll be requesting a draftification (via userification) if necessary (and I'll end up grumpy, troublesome, recusing from anti-vandlism and anti-sock work and letting others do some more of that) because some of the content will likely be re-entering mainspace at some point in some form. (Post edit conflict): No real issues if moved to draft if noone has presented a WP:THREE. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I want to point out WP:THREE is an essay, not a policy or a guideline. WP:GNG There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected Lightburst (talk) 01:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Djm-leighpark is not saying that 3 sources are needed - rather that Keep !voters here should put forward their THREE best sources that they believe meets the criteria for establishing notability. Also, WP:NCORP is the applicable guideline and WP:MULTSOURCES deals with the question on the number of sources required. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to draft. If there is an issue with finding or verifying sources to support inclusion, then this can remain in draft space until that work is done. BD2412 T 22:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• COIN discussion, please see: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Eastern Rail Services.--Eostrix (talk) 06:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there is not one single reference on this article that speaks to WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. BEFORE shows nothing better. WP:NOTDIR also applies. John from Idegon (talk) 07:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete- I thought this would be a keep for sure, but after inspecting the sources both in and out of the article I have to agree with John from Idegon and HighKing. Reyk _YO! 18:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Theres been a lot of WP:VAGUEWAVE stuff on this right from the nom. initially totally ignoring resources that are not online web text link. Unfortunately no one with access to those has provided any quotable details. If removed it will Wikipedia will prove useless at answering the question "What is Eastern Rail Services about?". Small isn't an issue if its doing something unique, and if it were not unique we'd bundle them into a combined issue. ERS's concentration on (mainline registered) rolling stock is somewhat unique as far as I am aware. But we have sufficient. The (Bumfrey, Steward, 2020) is RS for some but not all details; and shows the prominence of the new sidings. (Russell, 2018) does not appear like a press release and the information would have been gathered by information. One mans trivia is important to another, and thats all over Wikipedia and makes it work. "The Eastern Rail Services acquires Sleeper Mark 2s Today's Railways UK issue 207 March 2019 page 69" looks significant by the other magazines with its implications (I assume) of possible sleeper charter work. The ORR exemption is a forerunner of something that ought to come, but perhaps at present is WP:CRYSTAL & WP:TOOSOON. For those wanting a jigsaw or otherwise of the new sidings its here:[5]. Probably the biggest concern here is possible harrassment to the extent someone outed from the COIN, which is pretty serious, and I and the nominator may be held under investigation for that. My rule of thumb would be if you re-open an AfD then relist it formally, don't just pretend it never happened, even if it was for a 60 seconds.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for demonstrating this is a Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) failure, as none of the sources you point out are WP:SIRS, namely:

  1. Russel - [6] - a transaction reported in a trade magazine - is not significant, and is probably derived from a company release and is therefore not independent and primary.
  2. Eastern Rail Services acquires Sleeper Mark 2s Today's Railways UK issue 207 March 2019 page 69 - same as above.
  3. Bumfrey, Steward, 2020 - 2:46-2:49 in audio - is a 3-minute audio interview with one of the managers of the company on local radio. As such it is primary and not independent. It also isn't significant, and is reliable only for what the comp*any claims about itself.

  Wikipedia has set stringent sourcing requirements to establish notability of commercial companies to avoid promotion of business interests and to avoid being a directory.--Eostrix (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  We are back to the old statement of what one says is significant and one says isn't. Rail isn't a trade express isn't a trade magazine, and it doesn't much matter if it isn't, and it show obvious signs of investigation rather than a re-joggesd press release. The interview is primary for some stuff but WP:RS for others. The " Eastern Rail Services acquires Sleeper Mark 2s Today's Railways UK issue 207 March 2019 page 69" ... I haven't seen the article but the acquisition of that form of stock is significant.Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), as you are arguing against established policy. Deal announcements are primary. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Secondary sources explicitly states that "interviews by executives" are primary. And that's even without addressing the quality and significance/independence of the sources (a 3 minute segment on local radio, a trade magaizine which per WP:ORGIND: Trade publications must be used with great care. While feature stories from leading trade magazines may be used where independence is clear, there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability. This is because businesses often use these publications to increase their visibility.).--Eostrix (talk) 06:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That wasn't a deal announcement. Descriptive physical visible stuff is happening. In essence Wikipedia is here to serve peoples encyclopedic interests, and if peoples interests are railways so be it. What interests one doesn't interest another. And yes, we do use trade magaizines with great care. Articles like this are part of the rich fabric that is Wikipedia and enables swinging from article to article and are the lead also for newbie editors to contribure bits.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There are no independent sources, only press releases and self-published material. This is a small ROSCO with a dozen carriages and a Gronk by the looks of it, so that's not a big surprise. Guy (help!) 11:43, 22 June 2020 (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.