Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XYZ Rail & Civils

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 a redirect to Esken#Stobart_Rail_&_Civils. ‎Two votes for a redirect is a consensus in my books. Please, feel free to take some material from this article and place it into the Esken page. TLA (talk) 07:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XYZ Rail & Civils

[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)

After researching this company and reading the sources, it fails WP:CORP etc. It's not a notable company. Devoke water 14:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Companies. Devoke water 14:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and ~~delete~~ redirect: Given that all the information in the current article is poorly sourced to non-independent places, and I can't find anything much in Google beyond job adverts and routine press-releases, delete is a reasonable option, but it would be sensible to check if anything needs merging to Esken#Stobart Rail & Civils first. The notability of XYZ, if it has any, is as an offshoot of the Stobart group, so it's better dealt with at Esken. Elemimele (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please let us know when you have finished checking what needs to be merged and what your resulting recommendations are. Thincat (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NCORP. The nomination and sole reaction fail WP:NEXIST. gidonb (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elemimele: I'm afraid it's either Merge or Delete, but not both. Per WP:COPYWITHIN, any content copied from the source must be preserved in a page history attributable to the original contributor. Why would you object to the source page remaining as a redirect to the target? Owen× ☎ 22:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenX: What I meant was merge whatever material is useful from this article into the Stobart Rail and Civils paragraph of Esken, and replace the article we're discussing with a redirect. Of course the material should be credited. I am not a deletionist, but I think our readers are much better served by having reasonably in-depth articles on the overall subject, rather than umpteen tiny articles on little fractions of a subject. The lots-of-little articles approach rarely provides proper context and overview. It would be much better to cover this as part of the overall Stobart article. Elemimele (talk) 10:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. With editors arguing for a Deletion, Merge or Keep, I see no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the repeated cycle of insolvencies and change of ownership has generated a fair amount of routine trade press coverage, but nothing in terms of SIGCOV for this non-notable company of 127 employees and minus £4.4m in net assets. I don't know if the time it spent under the roof of the Esken/Stobart conglomerate justifies a redirect to Esken#Stobart_Rail_&_Civils, but I figure that's an acceptable outcome too. Owen× ☎ 23:16, 9 January 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.