Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/125 Group


 * 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. After several relists, there is still disagreement as to whether the sources presented are sufficiently independent and detailed to write a comprehensive article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  23:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

125 Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable organization lacking WP:CORPDEPTH and falling short of WP:NCORP. Celestina007 (talk) 09:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose, meets notability threshold, mentioned in four separate external cites. Cerenybid (talk) 09:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Cerenybid is the creator of the article. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  19:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Cerenybid please by all means do provide us with this WP:RS that shows evidence of notability of the aforementioned organization & I'd be more than happy to withdraw the nomination. Also note that a WP:BEFORE I conducted shows the organization has no notability whatsoever. Celestina007 (talk) 09:57, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Has 'no notability whatsoever' in your opinion, yet it has gained mentions in 5 articles in 4 separate publications. Is also mentioned in numerous other articles from similar sources, but won't bother adding until this AfD has run its course. Cerenybid (talk) 10:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: Tagging a notability query might have been a better initial step rather than bringing this article to AfD twelve minutes after it was created? A number of sources are available; I have added a couple to the article, and further coverage can be seen, for example in this query though, now that an AfD has commenced, it remains to consider whether that mix of announcement-based industry coverage meets WP:ORGDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 14:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * AllyD hey, I get the argument for “article was just created so should be left unbothered for a while” but aren’t we supposed to move article to Mainspace when they are ready for Mainspace? Isn’t that why a draftspace & sandbox is available for us? So we could work on articles extensively as we see fit before moving them to Mainspace? Do correct me if I’m wrong though. Celestina007 (talk) 01:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Celestina007, what would parking in draftspace achieve? Sure there is scope to expand, but having tucked away out of sight in draftspace isn't going to do that. The rules are quite clear; anybody with an auto approved account can create an article in mainspace. If we look at the first article that you wrote, 12 minutes after its creation this is all that existed. Had somebody been as anal as you are being, that uncited stub would have been deleted before you could finish it. Cerenybid (talk) 08:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Cerenybid First off, I have never said this to anybody but you would be the first I would say this to, competence is indeed required and right now you do not possess it the article you speak of is not my first article but my 40th and latest article which was in my draftspace until it’s completion (that is, from start to finish, fully cited and sourced) before I moved it to Mainspace. For you to call it my “first article” and also say it was “unsourced when I moved it to Mainspace” shows an overwhelming incompetence from your end. Celestina007 (talk) 10:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Celestina007, my bad I took your most recent creation, not your first, but the principle remains the same, it another editor had been as trigger-happy as you, it would have been up for deletion before you had even finished it. As inconvenient as you might find it, one mistake does not equate to incompetence. AllyD's advice is a better way of dealing with it. That you elect to write an article in draft space and then make 124 edits over 3 hours to get it finished is your way of editing. Just because I elected to bypass the building in draft space process is irrelevant, the end result was a complete article, (that is, from start to finish, fully cited and sourced). Cerenybid (talk) 10:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Cerenybid I see the problem is you don’t understand the imperative difference between draftspace and mainspace. Nonetheless, what I’m saying is it is customary to do all the work in your draftspace/sandbox (this includes sourcing it from start to finish) before moving it to Mainspace (like  I do) I have never and would never move an unsourced article to Mainspace like you erroneously claim. I don’t understand this To & fro with you the issue here is I don’t think your article is notable enough to be a stand alone in the encyclopedia that’s the issue at hand every other thing is secondary. Furthermore I’m sorry for calling you Incompetent earlier on, you made false comments against me which got under my skin but now I’m no longer irritated I feel calling you or anyone incompetent is just plain wrong. Celestina007 (talk) 12:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Understand perfectly the difference between draftspace and mainspace, but if an article can be fully cited from the beginning, the draftspace route can legitimately be, and dare I say often is, bypassed. Cerenybid (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. there are six independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 11:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Not only must the sources be independent, but the content must also be independent and not rely on information provided by the organization themselves. Can you point to a source that contains Independent Content? See WP:ORGIND for a definition of Independent Content.  HighKing++ 20:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Consider the present state of AFC, with the immense backlog, mostly composed of articles that either are of new editors who cannot create in mainspace or of editors who do have COI, and in very large part consisting of articles that will rightfully never be accepted. I think it is more helpful for any editor with even moderate experience to avoid using it unless there's a good reason.  Those who, like myself, who work screening articles there will be grateful.  DGG ( talk ) 22:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Oppose, 2 books published 125: The Enduring Icon ISBN 978-1-4456-7859-7 & Inter-City 125 Haynes Manual ISBN 978-1-78521-266-6 also registered charity Tempest3K (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Neither of those books are *about* this organization and both books were written *by* this organization so not an independent source and fails WP:ORGIND.  HighKing++ 20:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete The test for notability (which can be found at WP:NCORP) is not whether the organization exists or even whether there are "independent sources". The sources must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The sources must also contain in-depth information about the company and be significant. Not a single source passes the test for establishing notability and none of the Keep !voters above have argued anything beyond a simplistic argument of "sources exist". Topic fails GNG/NCORP.  HighKing</b>++ 20:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   15:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: unless everyone has back issues of Rail or Heritage Railway at home, I’m not sure we can fully assess how significant the mentions are. From what I’ve seen of the online sources, enough of the sources are independent and notable to pass notability. However, some attempts at adding more notable sources are needed in the future. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , which sources are independent and notable to pass notability? <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 12:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , in my view this, this and this all demonstrate notability and are independent sources - and that's before we count the six references from independently published magazines.Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks . While I agree the sources are "Independent sources", this is only one part of a number of tests, one of which is that the references must include Independent Content and it is clear that both references fail to meet the requirement for "Independent Content" which is defined as follows in WP:ORGIND: Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Since both of those press releases/announcements have been produced by sources connected with this organizations, they both fail the criteria for establishing notability. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 13:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment None of the Keep !voters have managed to provide a single reference that meets the criteria for notability and many appear to not grasp the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. The Keep !voters should point to specific references (as is required) so that we can all examine the sources and comment - otherwise this is just a whole lot of vague noise. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 12:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete As others said: "The test for notability (which can be found at WP:NCORP) is not whether the organization exists or even whether there are "independent sources". The sources must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The sources must also contain in-depth information about the company and be significant. Not a single source passes the test for establishing notability and none of the Keep !voters above have argued anything beyond a simplistic argument of "sources exist". Topic fails GNG/NCORP." Topjur01 (talk) 10:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.