Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great North Eastern Railway (Alliance Rail)


 * 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   merge to Alliance Rail. Despite the limited coverage, the consensus is to combine Great North Eastern Railway (Alliance Rail) and Great North Western Railway into a new article about the parent company, Alliance Rail. Go to it! Fences &amp;  Windows  15:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Great North Eastern Railway (Alliance Rail)

 * – (View AfD) (View log · AfD statistics)

Contested prod. The reason from the proposed deletion was as follows:
 * Now also Great North Western Railway, contested prod. Adambro (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

''There was a flurry of news articles in late September following a press release by Alliance Rail which suggested they had submitted proposals to the ORR but nothing else has emerged since nor have any details of applications appeared on the ORR website. I propose this is deleted until, or if, anything more concrete emerges such as an ORR application, particularly when the service is planned not start for four years and the reports of a dispute with Grand Central cast further doubt about the likelihood of this getting off the ground.''

The prod tag was removed, without explanation by, which at the current time is that user's only edit. A Google search for the username reveals a a graphic design company of that name. The website notes that the company has been working with the subject of this article to design a logo which suggests a conflict of interests. It also suggests work is continuing to develop the services described in the article but I would maintain that until evidence of an application to run the services appears on the ORR website, it is premature to have an article about this subject which could easily come to nothing.

There is also a sister company, Great North Western Railway, which I also proposed for deletion and hasn't yet been contested. If it is whilst this AfD is still ongoing then I'll add it to this discussion since exactly the same issues apply to both. Adambro (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Alliance Rail Holdings (Alliance) is a UK Company (Registered in England Number: 07026295) and has submitted plans to the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) to begin the operation of new rail services on a number of routes from 2013 through its subsidiaries Great North Eastern Railway Co. Ltd (GNER) and Great North Western Railway Co Ltd (GNWR).


 * The fact that information has not yet appeared on the ORR website is not something that Alliance can control, but the applications were submitted on 23 September 2009.


 * The person seeking to have the entry removed clearly has little understanding of the process and the timescales involved with these types of applications. For instance Grand Central (another rail open access operator) was established in 2000 but did not begin operations until late 2007. Similarly proposed services by Grand Union (now to be operated by Grand Central) for Bradford to Kings Cross were first listed in 2005, but services are not due to commence until May 2010.


 * Alliance has many supportive stakeholders, and the applications have also been favourably reviewed by Passenger Focus (see their news archive), and the fact that these applications take so long has also been clearly identified by Alliance’s own press release. Alliance also has an appointed point of contact within Network Rail.


 * Whether services actually become operational will ultimately be decided by the ORR, and as Alliance has stated, the process for determining such applications is unlikely to be concluded until late in 2010 or early in 2011.


 * There is also a large reference to Alliance’s proposals in the latest Rail Magazine, dated 2 December 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alliance rail (talk • contribs) 16:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge both: into an article about Alliance Rail. Articles about unconfirmed proposed rail franchises are too much like WP:CRYSTAL in my books. However, there does seem to be reasonable coverage of the company itself. Should the consensus emerge that Alliance Rail isn't notable, my preference will be to Delete. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: Here are some additional references which would tend to establish notability for the two operating companies as well as Alliance Rail: http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/Second-London-rail-link-on.5675562.jp  http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/4653813.Former_Grand_Central_boss_Ian_Yeowart_in_company_rift/          http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/Rail-boss-faces-legal-threat.5685793.jp         – Eastmain (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: That falls within what I described as a flurry of news articles following the Alliance Rail press release. None of those articles make these proposals any more than simply that, proposals. The same flurry of news articles doesn't really demonstrate that Alliance Rail merits an article either in my view. My opinion is that a company needs to do something more than make a proposal to operate rail services for an article to be merited. Adambro (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: Could I ask what your opinions on a merge to Alliance Rail would be Eastmain? Adambro (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: 1. The author may not  be aware of it  but  there is a blatant Conflict  of Interest WP:COI -  see his/her User name - the contributor is the interested party. 2. The article is promotional - an attempt to awake interest in  a possible future commercial  enterprise (press releases). 3. Wiki is not a crystal ball -  the function of an encyclopedia is to report current  and/or historical fact, not offer journalism or speculation on  future events. WP:CRYSTAL (see Alliance's own self-condemning comment above:  process and the timescales involved ). --Kudpung (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge: OK, I see that having two pages is just on a 'flurry' from the interview, so I agree with Chris to merge the pages and have infomation on Alliance Rail and some infomation on the proposed GNWR and GNER services.Likelife (talk) 10:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge. They will certainly be independently notable when/if they get approved but not now. They could change significantly in both name and scope by then and it is too early to have articles on them. We generally don't have articles on railways that are only in the proposal stage unless they have been discussed at length in parliament or subject to some other formal process. That said, they are notable enough as proposals to include briefly in the parent company's article as future projects. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge and redirect without prejudice to standalone articles if the proposals progress significantly. These proposals have received independent coverage that shows they are being taken seriously. In the context of open access train operators in the UK this is significant enough that there should be some coverage somewhere on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please could people also see WT:UKT. A related discussion there. Simply south (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge both into a single article on Alliance Rail, and leave redirects. The fact that they have two separate subsidiaries is not enough justification for the separate articles.  Also, the merged article should stick to the bare facts, and be monitored for conflict of interest issues.  --RFBailey (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2009 (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.