Deletion of Eastern Rail Services

Comment: Theres been a lot of  stuff on this right from the nom. initially totally ignoring resources that are not online web text link.  Unfortunately no one with access to those has provided any quotable details.  If removed it will Wikipedia will prove useless at answering the question "What is Eastern Rail Services about?".  Small isn't an issue if its doing something unique, and if it were not unique we'd bundle them into a combined issue.  ERS's concentration on (mainline registered) rolling stock is somewhat unique as far as I am aware.  But we have sufficient.  The (Bumfrey, Steward, 2020) is RS for some but not all details; and shows the prominence of the new sidings.  (Russell, 2018) does not appear like a press release and the information would have been gathered by information.  One mans trivia is important to another, and thats all over Wikipedia and makes it work.  "The Eastern Rail Services acquires Sleeper Mark 2s Today's Railways UK issue 207 March 2019 page 69" looks significant by the other magazines with its implications (I assume) of possible sleeper charter work.  The ORR exemption is a forerunner of something that ought to come, but perhaps at present is  & .  For those wanting a jigsaw or otherwise of the new sidings its here:https://nr.printstoreonline.com/non-operational-railway/great-yarmouth-vauxhall-sidings/yarmouth-vauxhall-station-layout-new-carriage-19868262.html?prodid=80436.  Probably the biggest concern here is possible harrassment to the extent someone outed from the COIN, which is pretty serious, and I and the nominator may be held under investigation for that.  My rule of thumb would be if you re-open an AfD then relist it formally, don't just pretend it never happened, even if it was for a 60 seconds
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:VAGUEWAVE||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: It seems that most of the Keep !voters are highlighting the "reliable", "secondary", "independent publications" attributes of the references and totally ignoring the requirements for |significant coverage with |in-depth information on the company and containing |independent content. The references here are either entirely based on announcements (No Independent Content, fails ORGIND) or are run-of-the-mill extracts from Companies House. Doesn't even come close to meeting the criteria for notability. Topic fails GNG/NCORP
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND)

Comment: To be clear what has just happened admin {{u|Spartaz}} closed this Afd with the comment "The result is delete".  I challenged the lack of explanation on the close here: {{Diff|User talk:Spartaz|963353796|963265082}}.  The closer responded with: {{Diff|User talk:Spartaz|next|963353796}} and seems to have silently re-opened the .  (I do with people would leave a note or do a relist when this has happened rather than a silent re-open, otherwise peoples have to do forensics to work out whats going on).  That said I welcome the re-open and reversal of close actions.  Thankyou
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD)

Comment: there is not one single reference on this article that speaks to ,  or . BEFORE shows nothing better.  also applies
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:GNG||WP:NOTDIR)