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 - Philippe | Talk 06:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WyvernRail plc

[edit]

The article is reffed to just one book, but which parts are from the book? Some appears to break POV rules. It was written by their press manager, nferguso wyvern (talk · contribs), which i believe is not allowed. Repeats info already at Ecclesbourne Valley Railway, and that which is not there isn't notable. The company hasn't done anything notable in both rail or other terms. BG 7 15:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect - BG 7 17:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Strong delete per nom" (!). Didn't you just nominate this yourself? Halfmast (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I am aloud to add my vote. It's part of the nom process.BG 7
- And you've nominated it under Music! Halfmast (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do I really look bothered? You haven't formatted it properly, but you don't see me wingeing. BG 7
- Also, doesn't read like an encyclopeadic entry - more a tourist guide, or even worse, POV. BG 7 17:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article's not like any tourist guide I've ever seen - although its tone is slightly promotional it looks like an encyclopedia article just not a particularly good one, although it could be improved. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 18:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmmm ok. That's what i'm getting at though. It's promotional (as is the EVR entry, but at least it is better.), and it's been written by the railways promo officer. Surely thats a reason? If people really want to know, then they'll write it in proper WP style using refs. Theress also an issue of the user reverting edits to the EVR page about the stock list etc, but that's to elsewhere. It's a free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not anyone can edit but will be reverted by the places PR officer. But, as I said that will go elsewhere. BG 7 18:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Real organization, registered company, notable in its niche. [1][2][3]. Just needs a few refs and a bit of meat on the bones.Halfmast (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it notable? 3 web links? Which the first is actually for EVRA, not Wyvern. EVRA are already at Eccelsbourne Valley Railway. If we allow Wyvern, why not Peak Rail plc, Severn Valley, Great Central, Churnet, Foxfield etc? BG 7 17:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hey, you've nominated, voted, and commented! I've said what I think and I stand by it. Take it or leave it. Halfmast (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Theres no need to be rude or sarcy. If you can't give reasons, then what weight will your vote carry? Am I not aloud to nominate, vote or comment? BG 7 17:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Should someone who can't spell saucy or allowed really be editing Wikipedia?212.71.37.74 (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Firstly, it's sarcy as in sarcasm, not saucy, secondly, it's quicker to type aloud than allowed. If someone is dyslexic (I am not), it's no reason for them not to be on WP. You can't even be bothered to get an account, so nothing you say will ever carry any weight. And i've reported you for a personal attack, and for being insensitive. BG 7 09:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "EVRA are already at Eccelsbourne Valley Railway" an article that does not exist yet? Sheesh!Halfmast (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's called a TYPO. Ecclesbourne Valley Railway. Have you not heard of a typo? BG 7 17:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Ecclesbourne Valley Railway and redirect it there - the scope of the articles overlaps and they both appear to be about the same thing. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 18:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect seems to be the obvious choice here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per above. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - lack of significant media coverage - I'm not convinced the Matlock Mercury constitutes a reliable source.--19:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Addhoc (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Ecclesbourne Valley Railway, with which it largely overlaps. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Ecclesbourne Valley Railway. There is no point to a separate article. --Dhartung | Talk 23:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I have been asked to close this debate but it feels too contentious.... and I can't understand why. Someone has some refs ... good.... add them. Someone feels this can be merged.. OK have a go.,,, show us. I think this company would not exist withour the railway. They are logically the same thing. Merge. ... but don't start name calling. It belittles all of those involved. Walk away if you are getting upset (WP is a big place). AGF if you stay. Victuallers (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -The WyvernRail section is padded out with information purely pertaining to the history of the line itself. The editor is a board member of said company and surely is breaching Wikipedia codes of conduct regarding self-promotion in any case [[4]]. Some of the article is actually referring to the activities of the supporting Association. The EVRA is the volunteer arm of Wyvernrail; or WyvernRail is the commercial arm of EVRA. They are inextricably intertwined and therefore their entries should be merged. --Skeletor2000 (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - The good faith creator of this article was given no feedback on it, either on article talk or user talk page for over eight months. There were a few article edits, but they were minor or technical. The first substantial attention given to the article is nomination for deletion. This treatment violates the intent if not the substance of WP:BITE policy. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2008 (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.