Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impact of the privatisation of British 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 keep. Discussion on article content may continue on its talk page. (non-admin closure) SST  flyer  08:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Impact of the privatisation of British Rail

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article does not describe its subject; for, the assertion that the described developments are consequences of the privatisation is, most likely, just false. For detailed information why I consider the article to be grossly inadequate, please see its talk page. It should also be said that I doubt that the impact of the said privatisation can be measured adequately, since this would require the exclusion of external variables, and it seems as though they are the main causes of change in this case. Mathmensch (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep. This isn't some kind of personal essay, it's an intentional split of the "impact" section from Privatisation of British Rail to stop the parent article becoming over-long. No actual policy-based argument has been offered for deletion, nor do I see how one could be; "I don't like it" is not and never will be grounds for deletion. &#8209; Iridescent 19:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Much of the article presents information on trends over time and allows the reader to formulate an opinion as to whether privatization was or was not the cause of the changes. The editor requesting deletion seems to regret that this was not a statistically-controlled experiment: in the real world of politics and economies, there are generally a lot of confounding variables, and one has to form a view as their significance: statistics derived from probability functions are just not available.  His/her opinion that "one cannot measure the impact adequately" is, as a matter of mathematical proof, true, but irrelevant: the real world is not that neat & tidy.  Comparisons across time and with other railways can provide sufficient information to draw reasonable conclusions, and if extra sources are needed (s)he can look for them.  It is a pity that (s)he has not bothered to try to constructively improve the article: if it has faults then deleting the article would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Gravuritas (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Agree with the above - this is a hotly debated topic nationally and we should allow the reader to make up their own minds. Almost all sections include information about changes due to privatisation rather than simply trends over time that are not necessarily down to privatisation. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. A topic that has been debated over some two decades, and it makes sense to split it from the main article. This is Paul (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep the name may sound dodgy, but it's a very real subject in the UK - David Gerard (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep If Wikipedia existed in its current state in 1971, no doubt we'd have an article about the switchover of passenger rail service in the US to Amtrak, the exact reverse of what we have here. My poor overseas friend in Wimbledon who commutes into London has turned her Twitter feed into a daily 'how South West Trains is being a pain to me and London again today' rolling commentary; this is definitely a notable concept for an article, and like the NHS, it's an issue that needs a comprehensive article about its effects, which this definitely is.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 01:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep -- clearly a relevant topic; reasonably well sourced. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The article may have its faults but it has its place and no policy-based argument has been given as a reason for deletion, so there's no need to get rid.  Rcsprinter123    (sermonise)  10:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Entirely reasonable subject for an article, no decent rationale for deletion. Artw (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the non-policy-based nomination. Since the article clearly describes its subject, this filing is effectively malformed. Muffled Pocketed  12:34, 10 September 2016 (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.