Deletion of Devon and Cornwall Railways

Comment: There doesn't seem to be sufficient "significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time" as required by . The Plymouth Herald article mentioned by Oakshade doesn't even mention the company as far as I can see. Maybe a mention in Dartmoor Railway might be appropriate. &nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: This is a sub-sub-sidiary and a minor one at that. I don't see sufficient coverage about the company itself to pass . http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/devon/hi/people_and_places/newsid_8587000/8587489.stm This BBC source is a tangential mention in the content of a railway line. And that too is a quote by a company employee (which doesn't satisfy ). http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/chancellor-george-osborne-s-talk-plymouth-rail/story-27737438-detail/story.html This Plymouth Herald source is a passing mention in a quote. None of this is significant coverage and certainly not enough to pass 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:CORPIND||WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: Minor freight transporter, fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The media coverage is there, if a bit light. But media coverage is not the only arbiter of notability. We need to remember |why notability guidelines exist. There's a case to be made that a mainline UK operator is inherently notable (there aren't that many of them
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WHYN)