Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diesel Trains Ltd

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 Rail transport in Great Britain#Train leasing services. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diesel Trains Ltd

[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)

The project the company was established for was cancelled, thus it never traded and was only ever a dormant company before being deregistered. Article is an orphan with no articles linking to it Hopldoele (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't find anything about this in any reliable sources. Definitely does not satisfy WP:NCORP. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 13:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge? This really isn't a corporation article; it's really about some of the fall-out from British rail privatization, and there's probably somewhere in there it ought to be merged. Mangoe (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The privatisation of British Rail was completed in 1997, this company wasn't established until 2009, bit of a stretch to suggest the two are related. Hopldoele (talk) 01:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And yet the protests in US cities can be traced back to the American Civil War. At anyt rate, the main remark stands: this is a story about government acts for which the corporation in question was merely intended to be a vehicle. As such the article reads as part of some larger story. Not being up on all details of British railroading, I do not have at my fingers the identity of that larger story. SInce you seem to imply that you are knowledgeable, could you enlighten us? Mangoe (talk) 03:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to imply that you are knowledgeable, could you enlighten us? - The fact that I have a working knowledge doesn't make me the a know-it-all as you seem to be implying, at no point did I insinuate, suggest or anything else that I was in any way superior. But as you asked 'so nicely', here is an article about the impact of the privatisation of British Rail. The company appears to have been established to allow the government to fast track an order, I am guessing to circumnavigate European Commission competition rules which would have required it to put the business out to tender, that would have delayed the process.

All that happened was that the company was formed, within months the project was off and a few year later the company was deregistered. In the three sets of annual accounts it filed with Companies House, there were no assets, liabilties, revenue or expenses, just share capital. It never traded, had an office, any employees, a bank account, entered into any contracts etc, basically it was a dormant company from start to finish. If the company had actually done something, then the case for retention would be stronger, but it didn't. It's notable as my big toe. Hopldoele (talk) 06:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's the "why" of this that is of interest. It looks to me as though it has a bit part in the whole question of ROSCOs. Mangoe (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of reliable independent secondary sources that are about the company. Also my old school friend Eddie owns more DMUs than this firm does! Guy (help!) 11:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere per Mangoe. This is an encyclopaedic part of the history of Britain's railways post-privatisation but it doesn't stand alone. The problem is that, just like both the industry and government oversight of/involvement with it our articles are many and varied with limited structure and comprehensive overview. My initial thinking is that this possibly belongs as a section at Rail Transport in Great Britain#Train leasing services as it was intended as a sort-of ROSCO, but I'm happy to consider other suggestions. Thryduulf (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to me to make the most sense. Mangoe (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Could be merged to Department for Transport. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 18:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merger to the DoT article is way too high a level. Mangoe (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2020 (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.