Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traingate


 * 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. Numerically, it's 13 keep to 18 delete, or rather 12 to 18 after discounting the unreadable walls of text by Krusty Kristovsky, so let's have a look at the arguments. "Delete" advocates contend that this is a recentist regurgitation of routine reports, whereas "keep"-ers point to the apparently very extensive coverage of the topic in the British media. Determining where news-type coverage ends and encyclopedically relevant events begin is a question of editorial judgment which I can't resolve by fiat, so we're at no consensus, tending towards delete. Perhaps this can be reassessed in a few months after it is more clear whether this kerfuffle is of lasting importance for Jeremy Corbyn, Richard Branson or anybody else.  Sandstein  19:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Traingate

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not merit a separate article, per WP:NOTNEWS -- certainly not under this particular title which evidently lacks proper sourcing. There's no indication that the incident will have lasting significance. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete If anything a passing mention in the main Jeremy Corbyn article may suffice. This clearly is suffering from WP:RECENTism, and I would agree with the nom that this goes against WP:NOTNEWS. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, agree with reasoning above, does not merit a stand alone article only a passing mention in Corbyn's; and only weakly meets that suggestion. 18:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Kierzek (talk)
 * Delete per above, and while Milibacon's impact on GE2015 is very tenuous at best, nothing presently to suggest this incident would result in Corbyn losing this leadership contest, much less a net loss (or even weak gains) in GE2020. Caradhras Aiguo (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. At the moment this is just a news item about a rather clumsy bit of campaigning. If this ever gets coverage in history books we can revisit this. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, while WP:NOTNEWS means that we shouldn't report every little thing, it has been given extensive coverage across all papers and broadcasters in the UK, and several elsewhere (some of which I have added to the article). Piggate and Ed Miliband bacon sandwich photograph seem to set a precedent here. In terms of the name "Traingate", there are already two references in there but I will find more and add them shortly. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * — Note to closing admin: Absolutelypuremilk (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.


 * Keep, quite convinced by the other sandwiches exist argument. Delete if Branson gives him a refund. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per Absolutelypuremilk. --Penbat (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. There is no indication that the very minor day or two press reporting incident will have any lasting significance. Piggate and Ed Miliband bacon sandwich photograph are incomparable and had coverage over two years. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete FFS does the 24-hour news cycle really bring out some unimportant events that fail the ten-year test. This likely fails the ten-day test. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe. But The Grauniad posted this assessment only two hours ago. HuffPo updated their story only five hours ago. The journey itself took place 13 days ago, on 11 August? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The journey may have taken place 13 days ago, but it has only just got into the news. And this is an encyclopedia that operates on a timescale of years, not a newspaper that operates on a timescale of hours. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As the article sources show, the video was news on 16 August, eight days ago, at least. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Eight days in the press does nothing to signify its significance in five years or fifty years from now. Graham (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right. Happy to wait just the five in this case. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP is far too full of overdetailed standalone entries, stuffed with passing commentary, about relatively trivial incidents like this that have caused a temporary media frenzy, but which are far better referenced briefly as a minor event/issue in the bio of the politician concerned or another page – ie with a bit of perspective and due weight from an encyclopedic (rather than a media) perspective. That's what the subsections of the notability guidelines like WP:LASTING and WP:PERSISTENCE are about. The Ed Miliband photo and "Piggate" shouldn't have their own pages either, but they do, and since people can accurately but simplistically claim "it's got lots of coverage in reliable sources" or "meets GNG", these things end up being retained. Sadly, this is a losing battle.  N-HH   talk / edits  21:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe those "quaint local-interest" articles need to be completely cut out? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as per everyone else. Bondegezou (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There are three keeps, so far. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. Graham (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, nine. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per all other deletion arguments. Trivia to the max, and as political scandals go it's hardly the Profumo affair. In fact, I doubt it even is a scandal. This is Paul (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as premature at best. This is yet another example of the media blowing everything involving Corbyn out of all proportion - we are not obliged to follow suit. Thryduulf (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Where do you suppose this ranks on the scale of Jezza proportionality then, if we are all supposed to ignore the media's reaction to it? Can you name any of these past frenzies that were potentially more serious on their face than this one? The guy campaigns on his truthiness and man of the people vibe, and says his train policy has wide public support, all of which will be shot to pieces if he cannot extract himself from the brown stuff in short order (and clearly his latest explanatiom isn't winning many people around). Where you see the media blowing things out of proportion, I see a sober and reserved institution like BBC News not only breathlessly reporting on every twist and turn, but also pumping out at least three (that I saw on a quick check just now) of their more in depth analysis type pieces, to explain the issues in detail, for those muggles who evidently know nothing about how UK trains work or what drives people like Brandon to comment or not. — Krusty Kristovsky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC).


 * Delete. Inconsequential blather. Bagunceiro (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. If it's a significant enough incident to have a significant effect on Jeremy Corbyn or VTEC it should be covered in the Jeremy Corbyn or Virgin Trains East Coast article; if not, it's just media froth and we shouldn't be covering it. In either case, it shouldn't warrant a stand-alone article. "Noted" isn't a synonym for "Notable"; the media report on the actions of high-profile figures, but it doesn't mean every action thus reported is inherently a noteworthy news story. &#8209; Iridescent 07:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. This incident, which involves a would-be Prime Minister misleading the public, is a much more significant event than either the Ed Miliband bacon sandwich photograph, which is just an awkward photograph of the Leader of the Opposition eating a sandwich, or Piggate, which is little more than an undergraduate joke about somebody who later became Prime Minister. It is absurd to delete this article while those articles remain in place. Eggybacon (talk) 10:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I hate to think how many articles would be created if there was one for each time a would-be head of government misleads the public. And this discussion is about this article, not those others, which you may nominate for deletion if you think they shouldn't exist. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not suggesting that anything should be deleted. I'm suggesting to those who think this article should be deleted, that there is no good reason to single this one out for deletion from all the articles about embarrassing media incidents about politicians. Eggybacon (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. Article deletion processes usually take place one article at a time, so nearly every discussion "singles out" an article. The fact that other articles exist is not a valid argument for keeping this one. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which I linked above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please may I respectfully suggest that you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS yourself, in particular the part that states "In consideration of precedent and consistency ... identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into ... whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia". It clearly states the importance of precedent and consistency. Eggybacon (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. Eggy, I suspect 157 will be asking you to add lettuce to your filling before too long. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I much prefer a good old BLT personally, but seriously...for an article like this to be notable enough, there would normally be a public interest issue (public interest in the sense of public well-being), or such intense and protracted news coverage that it would be hard to ignore. The question is whether there is enduring notability – whether this incident and its consequences will still be an issue for the public in several years' time. None of us has a crystal ball, but I've no doubt this will be forgotten before too long, and there'll be a fresh (and real) political scandal for us all to fret over. This is Paul (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The public interest angle here seems obvious even in the way you want to define it, and crucially that holds true whoever was in the right, one, none or both. Either it's a politician lying for naked political gain (still not acceptable in the UK, regardless of the brexit campaign shenanigans), or its a billionaire lying and breaching data prot. to protect his subsidised cash cow. And if the end result is Jezza winning an election, then by definition the public consequences of his train policy alone will last for years (decades, in actual fact). Assets worth billions changing hands due sleight of hand? It doesn't get more real than that, surely. Unless you like your scandals a little more deadlier/juicier. — Krusty Kristovsky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 03:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC).
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS's references to precedent don't mean that articles that should otherwise be deleted shouldn't be "singled out". How the hell did you get that out of it? Graham (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Agree totally with Eggybacon. If less relevant, less important articles around similar things deserve their own page, why shouldn't this, more significant one, do the same. — 178.78.115.153 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC).
 * I do hope this isn't a case of The Sock Man Cometh, or even The Sandwich Man. This is Paul (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, not a human billboard, surely? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Anyone who reads Wikipedia, particularly in political areas, no doubt fully appreciates that it very much embraces the 'here and now' as far as deciding what to contain - there is no ten year test here, it is more like a two week test, if there even is one. Whether you agree with that or not, I cannot fathom how anyone could live with the fact that Wikipedia has decided piggate is worthy of an article, despite it being pretty obvious what created it was a big fat lie and a grudge, or bacon time has an article, even though the impact of that is definitely up for debate, yet this cannot have one. Other than allowing a few comics some cheap laughs, what was the lasting impact of piggate? More people seem to remember it here than in the real world. Re. the bacion sandwich, Certainly in the media there is more support for the idea that Gordon Brown's off mic gaffe cost him an election, but funnily enough that has been airbrushed from history here too (and on the subject of wider impacts, the whole let's not talk about immigration and cast anyone who does as racists really worked out well for Labour in the end didn't it? There's not nearly enough written about that aspect of UK politics here for this place to be seen as a record of political history rather than a place for campaign strategists to control their current messages). In contrast to those two incidents, which have been retained here due to their supposed importance and lasting impact, in traingate we have a controversy where a leader has potentially lied to voters for naked political gain, a major businessman potentially breaching UK law to protect his company's reputation from political attack, and the issue is actually about something that matters and is part of the current political debate. In UK politics, scandals don't get any bigger without sex or money being involved. So by all means, Wikipedia can forget it ever happened if it so wishes (since I can imagine a small mention in Jezzas page will only ever get smaller and smaller until poof, it is airbrushed from history well before the next election), but if the pages on piggate and bacon time remain, you can rest assured that most intelligent Brits who keep up with politics will perhaps begin to think there are some mixed up priorities for this supposed encyclopedia here. As anyone with a TV set in Britain could tell you, this has been headline news every day since it happened, and as anyone who is even half way familiar with British politics could tell you, Jezza is not going to be allowed to forget the incident by commentators like Andrew Neil, should he ever try to bang this particular drum again, unless of course he figures out what his story is, but even if he does, the damage is likely already done. Put simply, a little reality is needed here - traingate only became a running story because it is about an issue of perennial national debate, it involves a leader whose politics rely on him being seen as trustworthy and someone who would never descend into the dark arts of spin, and who heavily relies on social media to connect directly with the masses to make points just like this, and the fact there are claims and counter claims flying around, and a whole lot more besides, like this data curveball. Even those who are seeking to dismiss this as mere news, sniff, cannot really deny it has been big news. And inarguably, Wikipedia covers big news, all day every day. BTW, as a caution to any non-Brits reading, I haven't even been following this story closely but even I can see that this article is missing big chunks of it that would give a clearer picture of its current and likely future impact - there's no mention for example that this happened in the middle of the ongoing labour leadership debate, and therefore how this controversy played out with regard to it, or that it has all taken place thru Twitter - their role was not confined expressions of support or mockery. It doesn't even clarify for readers that under Jezzas own policy, this particular train co. would be one of the very last to be renationalised, occurring some time around the heat death of the universe, by which time Jezza is sure to have become a long forgotten aspect of Brit politics. — Krusty Kristovsky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 03:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC).
 * Just to note this is a newly registered account with three edits, all of them to this page. Who on Earth will we hear from next? Crusty Loaf? Danish Bloomer? Danish Bacon? Tomato Puree? Eggs Benedict? Editors should be aware that using multiple accounts to bolster an argument actually defeats that argument, and won't lead to the article being kept. This is Paul (talk) 10:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is an ad hominem argument, and if with the bacon and egg references you're trying to imply that I am using sock puppets, a factually incorrect one at that, as I've only ever edited Wikipedia from one account. There are procedures for dealing with sock puppets if you believe you've found one. Eggybacon (talk) 10:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And it certainly won't improve the buffet car service on Virgin Trains East Coast. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I finally got round to reading this thesis just now, and just as a note, Brown's off-mic gaffe is mentioned here as having contributed to his election loss. I know because I wrote the article. There's also a section on "Bigotgate" in this article. So it is not correct to suggest the incident was airbrushed from history. As for "Traingate", well, it's a bit of a Man Bites Dog situation, I fear, or maybe even a Bus plunge story. It's an incident that happened, is deserving of newspaper column inches, but is it worthy of an encyclopedia article? I think not. This is Paul (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Old Beardie ate my rail service", perhaps? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This old Beardie did just that back in the day. This is Paul (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You are winner of tonight's star beard! (comes with free locomotive factory). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * My (unverified) suspicion is that "Piggate" and its widespread reporting on social media had such a corrosive impact on Cameron's personal standing among a large section of the voting public (mostly younger, mostly not generally well-informed) that it may well have swung the balance in the Brexit referendum.  What may appear to well-informed editors here as worthless media trivia may, in cases like this, have very substantial long-term political implications.  See also Post-truth politics.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree it probably contributed to the undoing of Cameron, although, as has been widely reported in the media, younger people tended to favour remaining in the EU, so maybe it was the older voters shocked by these alleged university antics who chose Brexit to register their disapproval. Interestingly, the Piggate story first appeared on 20 September 2015, and an article about it appeared on here the following day, so we're dealing with a similar timeframe to Traingate. Piggate, however, was the subject of an unauthorised biography, and received several days of news coverage in both broadcast and print media after the story broke, whereas Traingate has had several days of print media coverage, but only one day of broadcast coverage. One could even argue it was Ashcroft's book rather than Piggate itself that is the notable topic here, but I digress. As for the stories, I suspect the ink may be about to run dry if recent articles are anything to go by. In the latest "breaking news coverage", The Independent (and others, I hasten to add) tells us that Jezza was making jam as the "scandal" broke, while the London Evening Standard reports that Tom Watson used his Twitter account to "troll" Jezza about the affair. I'm tempted to make an analogy with Emperor Nero fiddling while Rome burns, but it hardly seems worth it. Instead, might I suggest there's a role for Jezza at the Islington branch of the WI if it all goes pear-shaped in September. This is Paul (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "One day of broadcast coverage" is of course a complete and total lie - I saw it mentioned on TV news bulletins on at least three separate days, and I don't exactly make a point of watching every bulletin every day. It's nice to see Biggotgate has eventually been mentioned in Wikipedia, and that it has been acknowledged here that it did have lasting impact according to the media (in contrast to people's worthless guesswork here about piggagte's impact) - but when I looked for it last, it was nowhere to be seen. What happened to biggotgate looks exactly like what is happening here - a bunch of people who either have no idea about UK politics or media practices (perhaps assuming our media is as rubbish and biased as the US media is, when picking and choosing what to cover and why on any given day), or worse, have political motives in not wanting to see these sorts of stories reflected in Wikipedia's extremely broad and detailed coverage of all current events until such time as they can have no effect (no harm in having details about biggotgate here now, is there?). It's pretty obvious that there was a biggotgate article here at one point (I'm sure I saw it myself), and it got erased because of the sort innaccurate statements here about media frenzies and trivialities, based on either personal biases (a desire for Wikipedia to be something it is not and not do any current events stuff at all, if not a basic hatred of the news media full stop). You can appreciate the damage these people cause to Wikipedia's development and basic purpose when you think how that biggotgate article would look now, if it had been left alone, allowed to develop on from the initial media frenzy. What is here now on biggotgate is frankly the bare minimum needed to tell people what happened, as opposed to any decent encyclopedic treatment, which should go deeper. Why anyone here thinks people would even bother coming here for such a brief recap of what happened, when they have Google on their phones, is anyone's guess. You would think people here would recognize that mistake and be eager for it not to be repeated, but that rather presupposes there is a level of planning and structure here beyond what appears to be nothing more nuanced than a flashmob with yes/no cards. The simple fact is, we are weeks down the line now, and the media coverage has continued far beyond what you would expect for a supposed triviality, and that is only because this is (and always was, as anyone with a smattering of knowledge of UK politics could have foreseen) a notable political kerfuffle in British terms (unlike the US, our politicians don't tend to fuck up on a daily, if not hourly, basis). If Wikipedia wants to wait for a year or more before writing it up properly, making sure it is the last, the very very last, outlet to admit it had an impact and wasn't forgotten as mere media froth, then by all means do that - but if you do, please just stop pretending that this makes any sense to the wider world when they can also see what sort of article gets kept here regardless of such a policy - piggate being the most obvious example in this context. — Krusty Kristovsky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 13:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC).


 * Delete As well as being a classic example of a news article it also doesn't pass WP:EVENTCRITERIA, particularly because there are no Lasting effects and that it only affected a local area. Minima  ©  ( talk ) 08:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with your conclusion, but must take issue with your assertion that this only affected a local area. It was certainly a national event. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I should point out that the incident was still being referred to in The Times paper this morning http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/why-mrs-t-in-a-tank-crushes-corbyns-train-628smvdsb Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You'd think Corbyn might be just treading water by now? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Extremely extensive coverage of this event took place and overall, was symbolic of the wider issue of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership and the challenges he's had to face, as well as his supporters and opponents given how extensively it's been documented and analysed. There's a lot of references from a wide range of sources on all sides. (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shan246 (talk • contribs)


 * Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. Everything about this incident can (and is fact seems to already be) addressed at Jeremy Corbyn and Virgin Trains East Coast. Neutralitytalk 20:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. I think put it particularly succinctly, writing,  Graham (talk) 05:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to note that Jeremy Corbyn does not currently contain details of this incident. By the way, Traingate has been getting around 500 views a day, which is fairly substantial. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's quite a few. Is this the sort of article that readers will find useful for a few weeks or monthys? The AfD process seems to assume there is any half-way position - either an article is deemed "encyclopedic" or it's not. I think many people will come to this article to find "the basic facts" stripped of political commentary. That seems to me a perfectly laudable function for Wikipedia. I sometimes think there should be some mechanism, in cases like this, for deleting an article when it falls below so many views. May be too difficult. Just an idea, that's all. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, noting that all mention of the incident has been removed from the Corbyn article as "complete and utter trivia" (here) - so that there is currently not so much as a link to this article.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an absolutely trivial issue. Yet the reporting of this issue has been wound up into something far greater than the original issue. As such, it becomes a notable incident.
 * JC sat on the floor. That is not a story. JC's seating arrangements attract comment from Branson, and the release of commercial CCTV to discredit him - all in the middle of a debate on re-nationalising some of Branson's business?
 * Also delete Watergate, as it was "just a burglary" and burglaries aren't notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:LASTING. This minor event has received so much publicity in the UK that, on the balance of probabilities, it is likely to have a long term lasting effect on a large number of people's perception of Corbyn (and perhaps also of Branson) in the UK.  We have seen similar effects with Piggate and the Ed Miliband bacon sandwich photograph.  Yes, in the minds of all good-thinking and well-informed editors here, they are trivial.   But to many of our potential readers they are significant, and it is reasonable to assume that they will continue to be significant.   We need to recognise the importance of social media - which has grown substantially since some WP policy statements were established.  It is our prime responsibility as editors to provide accurate well-sourced factual information about matters which are seen by readers as significant, including incidents like these - and they need to be treated as distinct incidents in separate articles rather than being mentioned and being given undue weight in articles such as Jeremy Corbyn and Virgin Trains which are of an entirely different nature (though it will of course be necessary to link to this article from those articles).   Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The amount of coverage and attention this has received by the UK media have ensured that this event will be remembered in years to come as part of the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn. The extensive analysis and "big deal" making of the incident, combined of course with dozens of reliable sources, lead me to conclude that we should keep this article.  Rcsprinter123    (confabulate)  00:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Still in the news today with a Labour Peer demanding Branson be stripped of his knighthood in response to it on the argument that hes a tax exile. WatcherZero (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment IMO this AFD should be closed as No consensus (the number of Keep and Delete votes are fairly similar anyway). In a few weeks time there will be a better perspective as to the longevity of this topic and maybe a new AFD could be done then.--Penbat (talk) 10:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No objections. In the meantime, should Jeremy Corbyn mention and link to this in the article text? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll let someone else answer that question. Just to clarify my point, announcement of the Labour election result is on 24th Sept and IMO it can be assessed at that time how much Traingate features in the resulting media analysis.--Penbat (talk) 11:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Traingate stories not dried up yet - this just in.--Penbat (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Meaningless anyway - traingate is worthless, no one really cares, the truth is that hundreds of paying customers on virgin train lines pay for a ticket everyday and don't get a seat - Govindaharihari (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sir Richard Branson seemed to care enough to reply with that CCTV footage? In fact, he was so shocked he fell off his bike? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * the rich like Branson are against brexit and are doing anything they can to stop it happening, they lost money and will gain money if brexit does not happen, its meaninglessness, to me and you - yawn Govindaharihari (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You're telling me Brexit is meaningless to me? Sorry, I thought I was still seething. And looking forward to the one new hospital every week from that extra money, of course. But maybe we're straying slightly here? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a serious underlying issue, train overcrowding, behind Traingate unlike Ed Miliband bacon sandwich photograph for example.--Penbat (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: We could actually use an article on train overcrowding in the United Kingdom. Anyone fancy writing it? -- The Anome (talk) 10:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. So, The Guardian is now reporting that Virgin broke their own policy about releasing CCTV footage because of this incident. I'm starting to think this may need to be briefly mentioned at Jeremy Corbyn, but remain unconvinced about a standalone article. This is Paul (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Phew! Not just Branson who broke his own cheek then? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. Another one from The Guardian. Richard Branson should lose his knighthood, says John McDonnell.  In wake of ‘Traingate’ row, shadow chancellor says Virgin founder is a tax exile who should lose his UK honour Eggybacon (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: While it would indeed be a trivial, nonsensical event of itself, the coverage around it and public reaction are the crucial issues here: this PR event gone bad looks like it's become a defining moment in public perception of Corbyn, as evidenced by recent polls of public opinion of the matter. It looks like counter-attacking Branson has fanned the flames even more. -- The Anome (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Not news. The news cycle is rapidly becoming the most detritmental part of this encyclopedia. Media coverage is almost never on par with long term notability.--Savonneux (talk) 10:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Not news, as aboveOptimist on the run (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - I am more than happy to recommend more worthy subjects than this that require rail contributor's attention!--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The articles here about UK rail privatisation and the franchising system are indeed monumentally poor on a brief look - certainly no help to anyone looking for background reading to understand traingate. But I would rather hope that the people that write articles like traingate for Wikipedia are not its train experts, but specialists in writing about UK politics, becuase that is at it is after all, a political topic. I fear this page alone shows there is a chronic shortage of people here who appear to have any clue, any idea at all, as to how the British media picks and chooses what to write about on any given day, esp. during political campaigns. If they think this is equivalent to man bites dog or here today forgotten tomorrow type news, they're either lying, or they simply have no idea what they're talking about. Seeing someone above describe it as affecting only a local area is beyond ridiculous - and that person claims to be British. It's nonsensical. Frankly, every single comment here which has come from someone who hasn't demonstrated they know anything about UK politics and UK news media practices should simply be deleted as irrelevant. The fact that it wasn't until two days ago that Wikipedia even realised overcrowding on UK trains was a thing, and has been for a long long time, should really clue everyone up about whether or not people here dismissng traingate as a trivial irrelevance have a good handle on the difference between transient news stories and real, long term issues of public debate. Even worse, I see the there are even people here who seem to think it only warrants one or two lines in the wide ranging UK railways article. Amazing to think that opinions like that exist, and are I assume borne out of some idea of what an encyclopedia is supposed to be, and yet piggate is still allowed to be a (very big) standalone article here. Hard to explain that without coming up with conclusions of personal biases at work. — Krusty Kristovsky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 14:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC).

Reading what certain people have been saying on Jezzas article, and the fact it still isn't mentioned there at all, I don't think you can escape a conclusion that what is happening here is people, perhaps Labour supporters, or perhaps just idealists in general, are desperately trying to make sure what is mentioned in Wikipedia reflects their personal views, rather than reflecting reality. It's been a very long time now, and yet this article still fails to give readers an accurate picture of the various debates it sparked, including such gems as a bit of soul searching from the Guardian about ethics in journalism https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/24/the-guardian-view-on-traingate-jeremy-corbyns-search-for-standing There's meta stuff like this about the impacts and implications of traingate all over the place, and not just in editorials before anyone points that out.....it's time Wikipedia articles started reflecting reality, then maybe the opinions of people in here might start to look like they originated from what they have seen in the real world, as opposed to what they evidently want to see in it (no media attention given to suposedly trivial stuff like this, or stuff the harms Corbyn). I've already explained at length how important transport policy is to UK politics, in addition to concepts like honesty in politics, so again, I ask that the viws of anyone here who doesn't seem to grasp how important they are in the real world, at least in the UK, be ignored when it comes to deciding if traingate is a notable event or not. Wikipedia should be reflecting reality, not affecting it. — Krusty Kristovsky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 14:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC).

To lliustrate the disconnect with reality of many of those above who seem absolutely convinced this is mere trivia, take a look at the sort of news stories that are still dropping as of today...http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-traingate-virgin-trains-row-cctv-sitting-on-floor-passengers-overcrowding-a7217471.html I seriously doubt there is any support in Wikipedia policy about current events coverage for calling something that has been studied in this much detail for this long as a mere triviality. I is obvious now that the people who want this article gone have nothing concrete to say in their defence, just a string of ever weaker assertions, some who are so lazy they're not even bothering to put their objections in their own words, all presumably because they know the facts on the ground as embodied by stories like this (again, unsurprisingly, it's detail that has not yet found its way into the article - perhaps because it has been under this cloud of proposed demolition for a week), have well and truly shown their views to be at odds with reality - mere personal opinions. Ignore them I say, unless or until they find a more convincing way to put their views across. — Krusty Kristovsky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC).
 * Yes, but you do realise that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news aggregator or a place to spin out debates from every single event that has ever happened? Also that an AFD page is not the place for these kinds of discursive ruminations? Finally, it's also not a good idea to cast aspersions about the ignorance of your interlocutors, simply because they happen to disagree with you. Yes there are some dumb people active on Wikipedia, but some of us do actually know quite a lot about media and the politics, both professionally and out of general interest. Happy for someone to hat this bit.  N-HH   talk / edits  15:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

This is exactly what I am talking about - you are completely detached from reality. Every piece of information added to Wikipedia about political current events is sourced from news reports. If that is not Wikipedia acting as a news aggregator, I don't know what is. What people here are trying to do is claim the news being aggregated in this specific case, is not worth aggregating, and frankly, given their inability to explain why, they are failing miserably. It's always a real example of Wikipedia gone wrong when it keeps deciding events are trivial, only to have to resurrect them later in a half passed fashion, as happened with biggotgate. Easier to get it right first time, no? Those arguing this incident is trivial, has had no impact, will have no impact, and will be forgotten, have offered nothing to back these views up. Nothing. Is that how these discussions are meant to go? Because if it is, you should really warn people, as some at least seem to be under the impression what matters here is making an argument you can back up with facts, verifiable evidence, believable experience and well informed reasoning. I don't think it's an accident that the best arguments are coming from those wanting to keep it, in the face of nothing of any substance from those convinced it is trivia, to the point I'm really surprised this hasn't been ended as a 'no contest' much earlier. — Krusty Kristovsky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC).
 * Krusty, you say that every piece of information added to Wikipedia about political current events is sourced from news reports, but the issue is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a web site about political current events, so we shouldn't be in the business of covering any such events. News reports are primary sources, but we base our content on secondary sources, such as analysis that puts events in context. Such context can be provided in articles such as train overcrowding in the United Kingdom, which I agree is a very overdue article. I don't hide my editing behind a silly pseudonym, so you can easily check that I am in the UK (albeit on the West Coast Main Line rather than the East), and I follow politics and current affairs so I am well aware of the kerfuffle that this event has created over the last couple of weeks, but I know the difference between an encyclopedia and a newspaper. Just to forestall any more of your criticism, I have no great love for either Jeremy Corbyn or Richard Branson, both of whom come out of this event pretty badly. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, that's the whole point isn't it? The coverage this incident received isn't merely basic news reporting, it is actually also generating in depth analysis that puts the event into context - e.g. "Who, What, Why: When can you sit in a reserved seat on a train?" from BBC News Magazine (their brand for more in depth analytical type coverage) and "How many people have to stand on trains?" from the BBC News Business section (so by my count, this incident has triggered reporting/coverage/analysis from three of their editorial teams - politics, business and transport, plus no doubt its social media desk, in addition to the Magazine section). That shows that both this article on the incident is needed here, and the train overcrowding article is needed for context. Wikipedia needs both if it intends to make documenting the history of UK politics/transport policy as part of its mission to be an encyclopedia. Thankfully some people here have, and are still, starting to accept the reality, that the nature and implications of this incident for UK politics were such that it was always going to be covered in a way that went beyond mere basic news reporting - every report I've seen in the aftermath has basically begun, 'well, you might have thought this was a trivial issue not worthy of much attention, but.......'. For those who really don't get it, the irony in your comment is that there is plentiful context provided in all the news reports actually (because outlets like the BBC seem to certainly recognise there is more to this than man bites dog, even if Wikipedia doesn't want to) - Jezza's stance on no spin politics, the stakes involved in renationalising the railway (which Labour largely ignored until Jezza made it a "binary issue", the impact on the leadership race, etc, etc. On an unscientific review, even the 'real news' news reports on this incident (i.e. the real primary source stuff) are both longer and more numerous than what you would normally see on outlets like the BBC for day to day campaign reporting - most people here may not even appreciate that when the online BBC News really is reporting on a 'man bites dog' type story (or even a 'Jezza said this on the campaign trail today' type story), then they will usually only devote a couple of paragraphs if there is nothing else to it. Clearly there was much more to this event. It's a sad indictment of Wikipedia that those who want this page deleted because it's just news are allowed to say whatever they want about it, no matter how patently ridiculous, and then effectively sit on their hands and hope and pray whoever decides the outcome doesn't look too closely at the facts. I hope to God the adjudicator doesn't simply rely on reading the article and fantasy statements made on this page by some people to make their decision, because I am still today finding stuff out there that hasn't been included in the article but shows just how much interest this even generated - such as a BBC reporter going as far as catching the very same train two weeks later, just to see for himself if it was possible to find a seat. Man bites dog? Not even close. Krusty Kristovsky (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep At its core, this is a simple incident, but this has blown over into something bigger with significant prolonged national news coverage. The pageview statistics further up the discussion demonstrate that there are more than quite a few readers interested, and a merge into Jeremy Corbyn is probably not going to happen as the editors there are steadfastly refusing to put it in. This is a major incident in his election campaign, and precedents have been set including the release of CCTV footage by Virgin breaching privacy concerns etc. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep This incident is notable. The most recent coverage is a remarkable boomerang: voters loved so upset about crowded trains that they actually love it that Corbyn faked a video on the issue.  Coverage is intensive, significant, widespread a ongoing (here's a real time news search ) - it passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:44, 1 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.