Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EMR Regional

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 East Midlands Railway. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EMR Regional[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't see that there's any coverage of this line of services that is distinct from East Midlands Railway, nor do I think this is a good candidate for a WP:CFORK. The only additional content that exists here is a WP:DIRECTORY of every route this provider operates on. BrigadierG (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and United Kingdom. BrigadierG (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage of EMR Regional relates to its plans to refurbish its rolling stock, which seems to be smaller and older than that used by EMR Intercity. I found several references for refurbishment and added them to the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the main scope of the page is to describe the routes its operating on. Because An article that is only about refurbishments of something is almost never allowed and can be placed on the relevant part of the article instead. Plus it is not titled refurbishment of the EMR fleet. It seems as though EMR are either brand new trains (class 810, due to enter within 12 months), sourcing newer trains (class 170, built 1998-2005) or in the process of refurbishment after it withdrew its HSTs, 153s, 156s and even the 180s. JuniperChill (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not only that, but please also note WP:REFBOMB. No more than three sources per sentence, plus I am not sure about the reliability of these sources. JuniperChill (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

> Actually, the main scope of the page is to describe the routes its operating on.

Have you been familiar with the discourse surrounding similar subjects such as lists of airline destinations? I'm really loathe to have more of these kinds of big piles of information on Wikipedia without further context? There's moderate consensus (albeit several years old) that these things are generally not good bases for articles. BrigadierG (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are just reprints of press releases - replacing some of your trains is just a normal run-of-the-mill activity when you operate a train line. I'm not contesting that the operator itself is notable, just the idea that its two train services need separate articles of their own. See WP:ROTM BrigadierG (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Selective merge to East Midlands Railway. This article is little more than a timetable at present without any justification for being split from the East Midlands Railway article. Eastmain refbombing with press releases actually makes me more convinced this isn't a notable topic. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Selective merge with East Midlands Railway, this article seems to be copied/duplicated from that article. Any changes of rolling stock can easily be under headings in the table on the main article. Should the EMR article get long in the future, a split can be raised then. The refurbishment of trains is not exactly a notable reason for a separate article, if it were more than just a sub-brand, like a division or another company, then maybe the situation would be different. Otherwise the refurbishment of some trains can be largely just one sentence at EMR, as it is largely a minor routine event for train operators. Dank Jae 19:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Selective merge with East Midlands Railway - as already mentioned above, the article as it is is nothing more than a list of routes with little additional content; nothing that would be out of place in the main EMR article. Danners430 (talk) 11:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - EMR Connect has also been created, are they both in a similar situation? As they're both sub-brands, seems odd to delete one and allow another. Dank Jae 21:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I totally forgot I created that, having been sat around for ~10 weeks waiting to be accepted/declined. The reviewer (please do not tag) seems not to understand that EMR Connect is a subbrand of East Midlands Railway and the fact that EMR Regional is under discussion. I would have expected a decline stating that this should be placed in the main EMR article instead for these two reasons.

Also, not sure why Great Northern ended up, along with Island Line (brand), being the subbrands of Govia Thameslink Railway and South Western Railway respectively. (This may not be an example of WP:OTHERSTUFF but hey). JuniperChill (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JuniperChill, the Island Line and GN have more history of its own to be separate, should these EMR brands have more developments distinct from EMR then they can have articles in the future. But right now they're just service timetables. The EMR brands are very recent, and their articles aren't developed enough to prove they're independently notable right now. Of course, you or another editor could have another go should there be more information in the future if these brands become more distinct and/or the EMR article gets too long. Dank Jae 21:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.