Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riley and Son

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. Joyous! | Talk 14:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Riley and Son

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

Non-notable engineering company. Only ping on Google is company website Nordic Nightfury 13:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 13:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 13:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 13:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 13:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep. It's not quite true that their own website is the only 'ping'. There's http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/restoring-the-nations-favourite-bury-rail-872079 and http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/11430899.New_locomotive_plans_could_be_heading_to_Ramsbottom/. There's a mention in at least one book (about their role in restoring The Flying Scotsman). And a 1957 patent reported in New Scientist that may be theirs. And plenty of news. I'm surprised it is here, frankly. Mcewan (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caveat: ~~It's just possible there are multiple companies with similar names. It's odd that their own website does not mention The Flying Scotsman project, but internal WP links go to this article.~~ Mcewan (talk) 14:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Flying Scotsman restoration was this company, and there is coverage in the BBC, Guardian, Independent, Daily Mail and any number of specialist railway publications. I will ad some references to the article. Mcewan (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the listed links above are simply local news stories and listings, nothing for a genuine substance here and nothing to suggest there would also be the sufficient improvements, so although it may be locally known, there's nothing to suggest a convincing encyclopedia article. SwisterTwister talk 00:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have now found national press articles, admittedly all for the Flying Scotsman restoration, a single project but nevertheless a significant one. Mcewan (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a vanity page / catalogue; not something that belongs in an encyclopedia, but on the company web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A company that really exists, and actually makes things that move. No bad sourcing on the article page has been pointed out. Then the nom comes along saying Non-notable engineering company [a]. Only ping on Google is ...[b] as decisive negatives. Just those two arguments for deleting?! Well, [a] is a personal opinion so useless, and [b] is a non-RS measurement. Unless there is something I did not notice (pls tell me), this XfD is bad-tempered by origin. -DePiep (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of references can be found in Railway Magazine, Steam Railway, etc., so easily meets WP:GNG. Optimist on the run (talk) 07:51, 10 December 2016 (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.