Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Harrogate Trains


 * 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 per absence of delete preferences (non-admin closure). Editors interested in pursuing a merge are invited to discuss the matter at the article's talkpage. ɥʞoɹoɯoʞS 16:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

First Harrogate Trains

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:CRYSTAL - "proposed", "plan to run", "if the application is successful, it will start running". ukexpat (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

*Weak keep but hang on Keep at least for the time being. We need to search for sources. If the article is true in what it states, then a keep is required. Other articles like this (although better) rightly exist.Btline (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Strong Keep have looked in more detail. Keep because there is a professional website, clear proposals. There are also three other "pipedreams" on Wiki, which are similar to this one - all should stay. There is also a logo ready. This is more than a "crystal ball." [Unsigned position by Btline (talk)]


 * Keep but it needs to be watched and built. First seem to be pretty serious as they have registered on built there own website for it. Worth a look if you're not convinced. --Fuelboy (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - valid article once the subject of the article has been released. Yes, WP:CRYSTAL does somewhat apply, but the fact of the matter is that there are other such articles that have been kept. -- tennis man  20:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Other stuff exists is not a reason to keep. This article has to be judged on its own merits. – ukexpat (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge with First Hull Trains. Despite the different brand name and web address, this is essentially a proposal by Hull Trains to run a new service to Harrogate.  At present, that's pretty much all there is to say about it, so a subsection of the First Hull Trains article should suffice.  If the proposal ever becomes a reality, then the situation can be reviewed. --RFBailey (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge RFB says it as well as I could. There's no point having articles on every UK railproposal - assorted ideas like this are floated all the time. —  iride  scent  21:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge with First Hull Trains until at least that there are multiple independent reliable sources as per policy. At the current time I only see the company's own website and the ORR application. Adambro (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed to Keep as meets the notability requirements defined in WP:NOTE following Simply south highlighting some additional sources of which the article from the The Press is really what swings it for me. Adambro (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A merge could be done but what about similar articles to this one like Grand Union? Year1989 (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Grand Union Railway has the multiple independent reliable sources required by policy based on a quick look. Adambro (talk) 05:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge. Despite the name, a quick glance at the web site makes it clear that this is a Hull Trains proposal rather than a new venture. (And yes, I would do the same for Grand Union and any other proposals that are coming from an existing train operating company.) David Arthur (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge, per arguments above. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

*Keep it reflects documented and referenced future plans. It should not be merged as the association with Hull Trains is purely a legal arrangement, both of these companies are part of FirstGroup, a massive company. And Hull is miles from Harrogate. MickMacNee (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but in one of the communications between Hull Trains and the ORR that I read about this, there was a suggestion that trains from Hull and Harrogate could be joined (at Selby) to share a path on the ECML to London. Hull Trains are definitely the brains behind this proposal.  --RFBailey (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename and expand - Rename to Future Harrogate open access railway or similar, as a holding article for the route and rolling stock info, and as a linking target from elsewhere. From the sources added below, it appears there is a confirmed plan for a new open access operation, which is definitely going to happen, and has been covered in WP:RS, and so is not looking too far into the future (we have articles on planes to be builit in 2020 iirc). So far FirstGroup, National Express and Grand Union Railway have expressed an interest in running it. Splitting the info across three TOC articles while we wait to see who wins it, is just unneccessary and wastefull duplication, which frankly happens too often already in wiki railway articles. MickMacNee (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is that rename sensible? At present, neither NatEx nor Grand Central/Union/Northern (or whoever they are) have made applications to run trains to Harrogate.  Also, it's not "definitely" going to happen: the ORR has to grant permission for it, which is by no means guaranteed (especially given that they're asking for extra paths on the ECML).  --RFBailey (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep no merge- only merge if it becomes definite that it will be run as a joint TOC. Remember - it has its own website and logo and NAME (!) currently. No merge. Otherwise we would have to merge Humber coast and City railway with Hull Trains (and Glasgow Trains) Don't go there, it will end up with a huge and difficult Hull Trains article!

I would also like to say that WP allows "Prospective TOCs! Btline (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The article fails the notability guidelines defining the base requirement for any article in that it fails the following: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Therefore it doesn't merit an article at the current time and so should be merged into Hull Trains which is appropriate since this is clearly a Hull Trains side project at the moment rather than anything completely distinct. Adambro (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A couple of independant sources, from just one google search term:, . MickMacNee (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither of these sources seem to do anything to establish the notability of "First Harrogate Trains", the subject of this article, but rather these proposals as a project of Hull Trains and as such I remain unconvinced that it is appropriate for this to be a distinct article and maintain it should be merged into the Hull Trains article. Adambro (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have changed my vote resoning, the sources establish the notability of a planned new open access operator to harrogate. Spreading that info accross three TOC articles, plus probably harrogate and other rail articles, is a completely wasteful duplication of information. MickMacNee (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - the argument "WP Other crap exists" cannot be applied to this AFD. This is because those other articles are valid, are notable and have been kept (and so is this as it is the same). If anything, this one is less "WP Crystal Ball" than the others! Btline (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. The Grand Central/Union/Northern proposals could all be listed as subsections of the existing Grand Central article, while details about Renaissance Trains' other ideas (e.g. Grimsby, Glasgow, etc.) could easily be included in the existing Renaissance Trains article.  --RFBailey (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - the connexion between Harrogate Trains and Hull Trains is not just that they're both part of First. If you go to the Harrogate Trains and click 'About Us', the 'us' that is documented is Hull Trains, not First. David Arthur (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It really is an irrelevant connection, purely a legal arrangement. If you already have a TOC entity set up, you don't create a separate legal entity just to make a bid that might fail meaning you then wind up that entity. I really can't see how people don't understand this. For all intents and purposes, the bidder is FirstGroup, barring the operational proposal (relying on which really does violate not speculating on the future), to split/merge actual train services, it realy is an irrelevcance. MickMacNee (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course it's relevant. If you read the ORR material, it is clearly Hull Trains that are responsible for this.  If the proposal is successful, they may well create a new company, or they may not--that's not for us to guess now.  Besides, Hull Trains is not a wholly-owned subsidiary of FirstGroup.  --RFBailey (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - why are we going to do things differently with this one article only? Let's just keep it simple and keep. If circumstances change, then deletion or merging can be considered. This is exacltly the same as other pages. Btline (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - it is not necessarily a Hull Trains invention. It is due to the fact of the success of Hull Trains (as are 3 other FTOCs - shall be delete/merge all of these?). If it had been a direct connexion, it would not have a separate section of website. Btline (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (Why have you made TWO !votes on this page?) Your comment about the three other First TOCs is irrelevant; they are quite definitely separate legal entities, each holding a distinct franchise, and each currently operates trains.  If you have read the ORR application, you will have noticed that Hull Trains are behind this--the separate URL is just a branding exercise.  --RFBailey (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

An AFD is not a vote. It is the arguments and what is said that counts. Therefore there was no harm in me heading up each of my comments with my decision- especially as it changed a little. I have changed the above to "comment" etc. and struck through my original vote (which latterly changed) to please people. But to strike through whole comments/ arguments was not justifed, is a form of sabotage and I was not pleased when I saw it. I was certainly not doing any harm deliberately. I will, however, not take this further this time. Btline (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't need a lesson from you on how AfD works, thank you all the same. I know it's not a strict counting of votes.  Nevertheless, it's considered bad form to offer your "keep"/"merge"/"delete" opinion more than once in a discussion.  --RFBailey (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to take further here, striking multiple votes is standard Afd procedure, it's not like they were deleted completey. MickMacNee (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No! You struck the whole comment! Btline (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. If you find any admin that will say otherwise I will redact. MickMacNee (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Whether or not Hull Trains are behind it, we shall have to wait for how the service is branded. If it turns out that it will be shared with Hull Trains, then merge when the time comes. However, until this is decided it should be kept - as you said it is branded differently at the moment. WP does not predict what will happen in the future. So it is still keep for me. Btline (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have no real opinion either way, but I thought I'd mention that I've done a little search and found that First Harrogate Trains Ltd was incorporated (i.e. registered with Companies House) on 14 May 2008. While it may well be a Hull Trains idea, it appears to be a seperate entity Hammersfan 06/06/08, 23.01 BST


 * Exactly, it is a separate company. It does not matter who dreamt it up! So until it is clear it will be merged/run under Hull Trains, it should remain on its own page! WP does not assume/guess what might happen. Btline (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not assuming anything. Read the application to the ORR, and you will see that it was Hull Trains Ltd. that made the application to operate the Harrogate services.  --RFBailey (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that may be true, but at the moment they are marketing/branding it as a separate TOC. Therefore, WP observes what they are doing and keeps this page intact. I have to say, I very much doubt Network Rail will permit the Hull/Harrogate services to be split along the route, as they did not let another TOC do that (I think GC). Btline (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Until such time as there are multiple independent reliable sources about the subject of this article "First Harrogate Trains" then this fails the requirements of WP:NOTE and therefore any other discussion are irrelevant. Adambro (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Prospective rail operations are notable, whether they are First or whoever. This information needs a neutral article, deleting it serves no purpose, bar creating unnecessary duplication across 3 train articles, and other geo-articles. It is fully notable that a Harrogate service is planned. MickMacNee (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

So the fact that it has a website and a brand set up, AND the ORR application is not enough? They are the most reliable sources possible. Btline (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No-one is disputing the reliability of those sources as stating the facts of the situation. What Adambro is suggesting is needed are sources that demonstrate the notability of this proposal: not simply that the proposal exists, but that people actually care about it.  In response to MickMacNee, I'm not convinced that all prospective rail operators are automatically notable.  Some of the suggestions put forward are laughable (although I'm not including this one in that category).  And I don't see how a merge (no-one apart from the nominator has voted delete) would cause information to be duplicated across separate articles.  --RFBailey (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, there are three planned bidders. It makes perfect sense to 'park' the information about the planned service in a separate article until an operator is announced, in which time it can be merged into a new oprator article as a 'history' section. The fact is, there exists right now notable information about the reasons bahind this planned service, and details about the route and stock, completely independant of who might be bidding for it, or will actually get it. Far too many developments in the rail industry are documented as insignificant and poorly maintained sub-sections of existing article, often deleted when they do/don't come to fruition. It's about time wikipedia acknowledged that the railway comprises more than just company focussed articles. This is a notable planned service. MickMacNee (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are incorrect on a number of points. Firstly, this service isn't being offered for companies to bid for. Three, or however many it is, companies each have developed their own different proposals to operate Harrogate - London services. I am not sure that there is any one company that will be granted permission to run their proposed services, I see nothing to prevent each from being granted permission although of course the service timings may be incompatible for this and need amending. This isn't a franchise that will be awarded. I don't know in what order the ORR applications were made but presumably one company put their application in first and then the other suddenly decided they'd like to run Harrogate - London services as well. Again, this isn't a proposed service in itself, each company is making completely distinct proposals which are only related by intention to run services between Harrogate and London. Adambro (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Who are the other two companies with Harrogate-London proposals? On the ORR website, I can only find this one.  --RFBailey (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep seems notable enough. Although if a merge goes ahead, might as well also merge Humber Coast & City Railway into Hull Trains. Simply south (talk) 10:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is it notable enough? Are there multiple independent reliable sources as required by WP:NOTE? Whilst there seems to be a good number of sources referring to a Hull Trains proposals for these services there is little that refers directly to the subject of this article, "First Harrogate Trains", which supports the suggestion that this should at the current time be considered a side project of Hull Trains rather than anything more distinct. I think we should consider Humber Coast & City Railway separately as the situation might be different. Adambro (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ignoring the application and that, i have found these things
 * 1) here directy referring to it,
 * 2) here showing it is part of a Hull Trains proposal
 * 3) Company listing
 * Simply south (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding these. As above I've changed my position to "Keep" on the basis of the notability in accordance with WP:NOTE being established. I did have a look myself for more sources but wasn't successful. It is the article from The Press (thisisyork.co.uk) that really swing it for me, which interestingly appears to have been published today. The company listing doesn't have much weight in my opinion, I'm not able to look at the Railway Herald article at the moment. I would still maintain that some of the previous reasons given for keeping this are a bit questionable though such as that they have a website. Adambro (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is more notable than other prospective TOCs. Because this one is likely to happen. And because it has its own brand and website already!

As for HC and C, it is unlikely to happen as NXEC and EMT are going to run the services soon anyway. So it seems like the AFD is on the wrong article. Btline (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * For you to have a solid argument at AfD you need to base your position on our policies and guidelines, not your opinions as to the likelihood of proposals going ahead. You need to consider this when discussing articles. Having a website has no influence on the degree of notability of a subject with reference to our notability guidelines. The points you have made suggest you don't understand Wikipedia policy and so continuing to make assertions as to why this article is notable for various reasons is only likely to annoy other users who understand the irrelevance of some of your comments and ultimately therefore weaken your position. Your comments have done nothing to convince me of the notability of this subject, Simply south's comments which address the notability guidelines made all the difference in changing my opinion. Adambro (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Perhaps you are right. But it is sometimes necessary to look beyond rules and guidelines and apply initiative. I would also say that a prospective rail company from First Group and Ren Trains, who have applied for an application are definitely notable enough for a wiki page - just like many others which are. But that is just me applying common sense... if more proof is needed - so be it. Btline (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is, not everyone agrees with your notion of what "common sense" is. --RFBailey (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a tough one, but after checking some of the sources linked above (as well as a quick google search) it seems that the proposal is rather relevant from a business perspective; the article could certainly use some work and especially more references, but I don't think it meets any of the deletion criteria. CrazyChemGuy (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to First Hull Trains for now. If the proposal fails then this will be in the right place; if it succeeds then we can break it out again. Smile a While (talk) 02:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.