Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TrainPal

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 redirect to Trip.com Group. Consensus to not keep, but split between merge and delete. Redirect is my usual compromise solution in such cases; editors can still merge stuff from the history. Sandstein 07:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TrainPal

[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)

Fails WP:GNG and seems to have been written as WP:PROMO. Abishe (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that it doesn't look particularly promotional to me, except in that some of the links are junk. But they seemed to be mixed in with enough links with focused coverage to pass GNG. I am not entirely convinced there is enough non-routine coverage to pass WP:CORPDEPTH, however. I'm on the fence. 67.243.20.177 (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment having read through this article and done a little bit research myself, I found the company is credible, and most of the references used in the article are from reliable sources. Therefore, my overall opinion is that this article well deserves to be accepted by Wikipedia, though modifications with the description and the references are encouraged. For the references: as suggested by the administrative editor, the main problem with this article seems to be ″promotional″ WP:PROMO. This does not feel like a problem to me, yet can be addressed by deleting/changing certain references if it does to other editors. For the description, as also mentioned by an earlier editor, more details on the company's history, organization, etc., would better be included to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. I will be more than happy with this article being accepted given the authors revise accordingly, but am also okay if the authors decide to leave it ″as is″ for the time being.Thuslittleseven (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Thuslittleseven (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Thuslittleseven's comment is essentially a "keep" ivote. The only contributions this editor has made to Wikipedia are this AfD [1]. Also, this account was created on 5 January 2017 [2] ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can of course tag it with SPA if you want, but even with a couple of common points, there's not enough to overcome AGF. Closing admin can weigh as they see fit, though I suspect Sandstein probably relisted on a delete/merge split Nosebagbear (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet SIGCOV guidelines in provided sources. GrangerShots (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as likely paid-for spam. I've blocked the creator for this. MER-C 13:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Trip.com Group, the parent company of TrainPal, per Wikipedia:Editing policy#Try to fix problems. I reviewed the article and consider it neutrally written:
TrainPal is an online ticketing platform owned and operated by Ctrip.
Launched in February 2018 in the United Kingdom, and website.
TrainPal is mainly for the United Kingdom, other European countries, with the feature of "split ticketing", making its debut in the UK in February 2018.
In July 2018, the software was launched in Italy, and Italo. In September, it entered German by collaborating with Deutsche Bahn.
TrainPal has been accredited by the National Rail of the United Kingdom.
The text does not use promotional language.
Cunard (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Trip.com Group as advised by Cunard. The sourcing is not sufficient for NCORP/NPRODUCT requirements, but certainly could be added into its parent's page. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no demonstration of WP:RS. Fails GNG, ORG. Also it is likely SPAM [3]. Not a platform for advertising or promotion WP:PROMO. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect - We have only a bit of useful information and just slight notability, so I agree that we should send things over to 'Trip.com Group'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:33, 2 May 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.