This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Transportation. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Transportation|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Transportation. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
watch |
Additional debates categorized as dealing with Transportation related issues may also be listed at Category:AfD debates (Places and transportation).
Transportation
Cavalcade station
- Cavalcade station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Couldn't find any reliable sources for this article, even newspapers as well. Fails WP:GNG and WP:VERIFY. I don't see how this article can be on this website. To me, this needs to be discussed. GoodHue291 (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and Texas. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. I found general mention of this station on travel websites but nothing that would qualify as a source for this article. It seems to violate WP:NRV. Garsh (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Bridges construction
- Bridges construction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I declined User:Flemmish Nietzsche's speedy ("dup of Bridge") because it's more of a subtopic/content fork. However, as it stands this article does not actually make the case for being a coherent topic. The parent article is not large and this child article appears to have few if any cites that support its topic claims (historical facts, engineering opinions, etc.). The cites are for small specific details. There are too many different types of bridges, each with own construction method, and each already has its own article. And I agree bridges already has both well-cited history and a well-linked summary-style of the types. DMacks (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: As the nominator for deletion under A10. Of course not all the content is an exact duplicate, but it appears to be a translation from the Russian article, and "Bridges construction" is essentially the same topic as bridges, so I thought A10 would work here under WP:SNOW of this ever being a keep at AfD. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- The same editor as created the enwiki article is the only substantive contributor to that ruwiki article. That's not a license problem. DMacks (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Not saying it is a license issue, rather it's an issue with the ruwiki contributor trying to push their translation of their russian article onto enwiki when we already have an article on bridges, which again is essentially the same thing as "bridges construction". Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Gotcha. Obviously not disputing that aspect. DMacks (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- On the "Bridge" page there is no information about the methods and stages of constructing bridges. Therefore, the "Bridges construction" page is planned primarily to describe various technologies for creating bridges, and these two pages will not compete with each other. VasilijB (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Not saying it is a license issue, rather it's an issue with the ruwiki contributor trying to push their translation of their russian article onto enwiki when we already have an article on bridges, which again is essentially the same thing as "bridges construction". Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- The same editor as created the enwiki article is the only substantive contributor to that ruwiki article. That's not a license problem. DMacks (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Engineering, and Transportation. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
2017 Tanay bus accident
- 2017 Tanay bus accident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails Wikipedia:Notability (events). No evidence of lasting effects based on GNews Archives and GBooks search. GNews shows a temporary ban on field trips which lasted merely six months. A brief and cited mention is already at List_of_traffic_collisions_(2000–present)#2017 so a redirect ther can be an alternative to deletion. I've also added the reference mentioned above as a citation in said entry. Lenticel (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Philippines. Lenticel (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Merge - Per nominator
- TheNuggeteer (talk) 09:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep this well-developed article as a legitimate SPINOFF that passes EVENT. Just 7 years have passed since this accident in which 50 people died. Societal impact beyond the event was acknowledged by nom. Deleting this article will further increase the disparity between the accidents that are being kept and deleted for developed countries versus developing countries. gidonb (talk) 10:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
2017 Nueva Ecija bus accident
- 2017 Nueva Ecija bus accident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails Wikipedia:Notability (events). No evidence of lasting effects based on GNews Archives and GBooks search. A brief and cited mention is already at List_of_traffic_collisions_(2000–present)#2017 so a redirect ther can be an alternative to deletion. Lenticel (talk) 09:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Philippines. Lenticel (talk) 09:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
EconomyBookings
- EconomyBookings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previously deleted for WP:G11, and not much has changed since then. Every citation is either a press release or doesn't have SigCov. BrigadierG (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete for reasons stated. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, Websites, and Latvia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Interesting Engineering
- Interesting Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Written extremely like an advertisement and has many other problems. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 17:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 17:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Science, Engineering, Transportation, Websites, Turkey, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete good web presence, but the only mentions of it I can find are on places like Reddit. The article trying to WP:INHERIT notability from other news outlets that have cited it is telling. BrigadierG (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Trichy Tollgate
- Trichy Tollgate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completely uncoursed, fails WP:NPLACE as I could not find any reliable sources or indication of legal recognition. Hence this appears like mostly WP:ORIGINAL research. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. No sources on the page to get significant coverage on this toll junction and is not notable. It does not satisfy the legal recognition requirement. RangersRus (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Transportation, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. This is a HUGE mess and, regardless of the (unlikely) notability, should be TNTd. Links here should be removed. Thank you, User:Cocobb8, for nominating! gidonb (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Simpasture railway station
- Simpasture railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails GNG. Of the seven sources, two are trivial mentions, four don't mention the station at all, and one (Priestley) has brief mentions of a station of similar name but many decades earlier. A BEFORE search does not find anything more substantial. My bold redirect to Clarence Railway was removed by the article's creator. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and United Kingdom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Demons Bridge railway station
- Demons Bridge railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails GNG. Of the three sources, two are trivial mentions and one does not mention the station at all. A BEFORE search does not find anything more substantial. My bold redirect to Clarence Railway was removed by the article's creator. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and United Kingdom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
British Rail Eastern Region departmental locomotives
- British Rail Eastern Region departmental locomotives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wholly unsourced article since 2009 Danners430 (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Danners430 (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Danners430, were you aware that there isn't actually a requirement in any policy or guideline to cite sources? Our rule is that a subject can qualify for a separate article if sources exist in the real world, even if none are cited in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes I am aware. However, if you continue reading through that guideline, you’ll find more info - specifically regarding whether editors can find sources elsewhere. I’ve done a search through sources that I know of, and through search engines, and can’t find any sources whatsoever. As per that guideline, that seriously casts into question the notability of the article. Danners430 (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: This is contextless data with no indication of importance or discussion as a group in secondary sources; as such, it fails WP:NLIST. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. I found a book source which I think is enough to establish the topic's notability. Smith, Paul; Smith, Shirley (2014). British Rail departmental locomotives 1948-1968 : includes depots and stabling points. Hersham: Ian Allan Publishing. p. 96. ISBN 978-0-7110-3800-4. OCLC 897871236. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NLIST. These statistics are not given any context or meaning. Eastmain above fails to distinguish between departmental locomotives as a whole (we already have British Rail departmental locomotives) and eastern region departmental locomotives. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
British Rail DHP1
- British Rail DHP1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wholly unsourced article since 2009 Danners430 (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: without sources. Nothing came up on Google. RolandSimon (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Danners430 (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: There just isn't anything written about this that I can find [1], a photo there, and [2], a magazine that won't open for me... I'd maybe merge this into the list of British locomotives, but it's unsourced regardless. I mean, the information came from somewhere, but we don't have a source identified... Oaktree b (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: I can't find any evidence of SIGCOV, and no suitable redirect target seems to exist. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete unfortunately, unless offline sourcing exists (which wouldn't surprise me). I found a couple of sources that were neither in-depth nor reliable which suggest that British Rail Class 17 (on which it was based) would make an appropriate merge target if we can verify the information. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as this is basically unverifiable. Even if it were conclusively proven to exist it would only merit a brief mention within the Class 17 article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think there is any serious doubt that this existed and was based on the Class 17. I haven't found a reliable source that states this but the variety and nature of the unreliable ones I've found leaves me in no doubt. However we do need reliable sources, and while I would be surprised if such didn't exist they haven't been found yet. Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
List of preserved Boeing aircraft
- List of preserved Boeing aircraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It duplicates the content on the main article pages. (e.g. Boeing 707) Dedicated aircraft on display articles are only created for single types when the list becomes too long for the main article. The list also includes pictures, which runs counter to the WikiProject:Aviation style guide.
- Subsequent to the creation of this AfD, I discovered there is an additional article created by the same user at: List of preserved McDonnell Douglas aircraft. –Noha307 (talk) 04:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 4. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 05:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Aviation, Transportation, Lists, and Virginia. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- The linked "No images should be included in lists of aircraft, this is not what lists are for." is one of the strangest things I've seen here. All of my lists include pictures and this prohibition makes no sense, why would this be here? What lists does this refer to specifically? I can imagine for certain large lists you wouldn't want excessive pictures that look similar and add little, but I don't see a need to apply that here; that is not a justification for deletion. Where you're talking about individual aircraft that are preserved and on display for people to see, showing everyone here who can't go to all these museums what they look like is a great idea! While I agree that duplication with the bullet-point lists in the main article is not great, I think a list that can include additional details like useful pictures – or at least be a central navigation page – can be reasonable. Keep Reywas92Talk 17:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
All of my lists include pictures and this prohibition makes no sense, why would this be here?
- It increases the file size of the page. However, it also unnecessarily increases the height of each row of the table and reduces the width of the other cells, which makes the table longer and the legibility of information more difficult as the text is wrapped onto multiple lines. However, these are my own reasons. There's a bit more in a section on the talk page of the style guide.
- It's worth noting that a number of the images don't show the aircraft on display, but in service, which is not appropriate or useful for a list of this type.
that is not a justification for deletion
- Agreed. In and of itself, it is not a justification for deletion. However, it is something that adds weight against it. –Noha307 (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment this list appears to be missing the 707 Air Force One as noted at Air Force One#Boeing 707s and entry to jet age. No opinion on whether this should be kept or not, but that seems a strange omission. Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Nom and Reywas95 both make valid points. That said, the concerns with the article do not warrant deletion. Rather, improvements are welcome. In this respect, I wonder if it would be possible to create shared sections (not sure on the WP jargon) that can both fit into the model articles and into this article. gidonb (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Split to individual aircraft types. These manufacturer-based lists are problematic because they either end up duplicating the information in the article on the type, or they are incomplete because they omit types that have only a couple of surviving examples which are adequately covered on the main article on the type. It looks like the anonymous editor creating these manufacturer-based lists was also recently involved in a bad-faith PROD of an aircraft type article. It would be good for the folks involved in creating and maintaining lists of preserved aircraft could generate some consensus on thesholds of when to split from type articles, and also agree not to create manufacturer lists like this one. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Why does the list only cover Boeing 7x7's? Boeing made many other aircraft types, so shouldn't they be covered in the list is kept? Mjroots (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Cầu Diễn station
- Cầu Diễn station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Zero sources to meet the GNG. The source cited doesn't mention this station. The only others I could find list it as one among several stations [3][4] and say nothing more. No significant coverage. Toadspike [Talk] 15:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Please redirect this to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro). Toadspike [Talk] 15:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and Vietnam. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Merge the position data, etc. to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro) and redirect there if sources cannot be found (they're most likely to be in Vietnamese, so do check in that language). There is no reason to delete the information present in the article which will be useful if it is expanded in future. Thryduulf (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Merge there isn't enough coverage (or content) for a separate article from Line 3 (Hanoi Metro) yet, but there might be in the future. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. I added some references from the corresponding article in Vietnamese. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. All these metro station articles can be expanded (and their references improved) using the information already present in the corresponding articles in Vietnamese and other languages. Reviewing relevant articles in other languages is an important part of WP:BEFORE. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Per my talk page: I checked the Vietnamese Wikipedia articles for most of these nominations and their sourcing was no better. In this example, there is a map from Hanoi Metro [5], which isn't an independent source and has no information to boot, and this source [6], which doesn't mention the station at all.
- Source review on enwiki: Four sources never mention this station [7][8][9][10] (yes, I even watched the full 56-second video). There is also an article which lists the names of eight stations but says nothing more about this station [11].
- I assume good faith when people say sources exist somewhere, but in this case there are even fewer sources there and none are useful for notability. I do not appreciate the casting of aspersions about my BEFORE checks. Toadspike [Talk] 06:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'll go further than Toadspike. You are completely out of line, Eastmain. You make a habit of dumping any source you find online and then saying keep without actually reading them, and have an idea of what constitutes significant coverage that is utterly out of line with community consensus. Your AfD match rate is below 60%, while Toadspike is at nearly 90%. If anyone needs to improve their behavior at AfD, it is you (I'm at 83%, if you're wondering). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Appears to have sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:HEY. Metro stations that have tens of thousands of riders annually are almost always notable. Bearian (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- I have to object to the claim that WP:HEY applies. The article has 5 sources for one sentence of prose content, and as Toadspike notes, there isn't coverage there. In fact, none of them even show the station is open, much less has "tens of thousands of riders". There is no improvement that suggests any outcome other than a redirect should happen. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Train stations are not automatically notable per community consensus. Please stop repeating this debunked claim. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still divided between Keep and Merge/Redirect. Rather than close as No Consensus, I'm relisting once more.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per the clear failure of any of the supposed sources to actually demonstrate any substantial coverage of this station. The invocation of HEY is ridiculous as the article is still exactly one sentence, to the point that vote should be ignored. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Mont-Tremblant/Lac Ouimet Water Aerodrome
- Mont-Tremblant/Lac Ouimet Water Aerodrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NBUILDING and WP:GNG. Long defunct airport, Only "reference" stated is the Nav Canada Wikipedia article, which make no mention of this airport, and is improper as Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
Note: this is TC LID CST9, NOT Mont-Tremblant/Saint-Jovite Airport (TC LID: CSZ3), so if you are determining if there are any WP:RS to find, they are different airports. Zinnober9 (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Transportation, and Canada. Zinnober9 (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The 15 March 2007 Canada Flight Supplement mentioned in the article is a valid reference. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - The nominator is mistaken about the source. The information is not sourced from, or claimed to be sourced from the Nav Canada Wikipedia article, but rather the Canada Water Aerodrome Supplement. The link to the Wikipedia article is for clarity as the CWAS does not appear to be available online other than for purchase from Nav Canada. - ZLEA T\C 07:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect. This is a 2005 article created when Wikipedia was much smaller, articles like this were welcomed, and notability was perhaps a bit looser. However, there was never any ideas as to the fate of abandoned aerodrome articles. Some have been redirected to "List of airports in province", others to List of defunct airports in Canada, and others still remain. The only thing this aerodrome has going for it in terms of notability is that there was a death associated with it. Doesn't really make it notable. As per the others the source is the printed, water, version of the Canada Flight Supplement. I owned copies but haven't bought one in a few years. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)- Redirect. User:Hamterous1 (discuss anything!🐹✈️) 18:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If this article was Redirected, what would be the target articles? This needs to be identified if you are suggesting a Redirect or Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Stations
Cavalcade station
- Cavalcade station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Couldn't find any reliable sources for this article, even newspapers as well. Fails WP:GNG and WP:VERIFY. I don't see how this article can be on this website. To me, this needs to be discussed. GoodHue291 (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and Texas. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. I found general mention of this station on travel websites but nothing that would qualify as a source for this article. It seems to violate WP:NRV. Garsh (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Stillington railway station
- Stillington railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails GNG. Of the three sources, one is a trivial mention and two do not mention the station at all. A BEFORE search does not find anything more substantial. My bold redirect to Clarence Railway was removed by the article's creator. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Saltersgate Cottage railway station
- Saltersgate Cottage railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails GNG. Of the two sources, one does not mention the station at all. The other is a personal website (likely fails WP:RS) with a total of five sentences about the station. A BEFORE search does not find anything more substantial. My bold redirect to Stanhope and Tyne Railway was removed by the article's creator. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Simpasture railway station
- Simpasture railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails GNG. Of the seven sources, two are trivial mentions, four don't mention the station at all, and one (Priestley) has brief mentions of a station of similar name but many decades earlier. A BEFORE search does not find anything more substantial. My bold redirect to Clarence Railway was removed by the article's creator. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and United Kingdom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Demons Bridge railway station
- Demons Bridge railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails GNG. Of the three sources, two are trivial mentions and one does not mention the station at all. A BEFORE search does not find anything more substantial. My bold redirect to Clarence Railway was removed by the article's creator. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and United Kingdom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Cầu Diễn station
- Cầu Diễn station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Zero sources to meet the GNG. The source cited doesn't mention this station. The only others I could find list it as one among several stations [12][13] and say nothing more. No significant coverage. Toadspike [Talk] 15:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Please redirect this to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro). Toadspike [Talk] 15:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and Vietnam. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Merge the position data, etc. to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro) and redirect there if sources cannot be found (they're most likely to be in Vietnamese, so do check in that language). There is no reason to delete the information present in the article which will be useful if it is expanded in future. Thryduulf (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Merge there isn't enough coverage (or content) for a separate article from Line 3 (Hanoi Metro) yet, but there might be in the future. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. I added some references from the corresponding article in Vietnamese. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. All these metro station articles can be expanded (and their references improved) using the information already present in the corresponding articles in Vietnamese and other languages. Reviewing relevant articles in other languages is an important part of WP:BEFORE. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Per my talk page: I checked the Vietnamese Wikipedia articles for most of these nominations and their sourcing was no better. In this example, there is a map from Hanoi Metro [14], which isn't an independent source and has no information to boot, and this source [15], which doesn't mention the station at all.
- Source review on enwiki: Four sources never mention this station [16][17][18][19] (yes, I even watched the full 56-second video). There is also an article which lists the names of eight stations but says nothing more about this station [20].
- I assume good faith when people say sources exist somewhere, but in this case there are even fewer sources there and none are useful for notability. I do not appreciate the casting of aspersions about my BEFORE checks. Toadspike [Talk] 06:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'll go further than Toadspike. You are completely out of line, Eastmain. You make a habit of dumping any source you find online and then saying keep without actually reading them, and have an idea of what constitutes significant coverage that is utterly out of line with community consensus. Your AfD match rate is below 60%, while Toadspike is at nearly 90%. If anyone needs to improve their behavior at AfD, it is you (I'm at 83%, if you're wondering). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Appears to have sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:HEY. Metro stations that have tens of thousands of riders annually are almost always notable. Bearian (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- I have to object to the claim that WP:HEY applies. The article has 5 sources for one sentence of prose content, and as Toadspike notes, there isn't coverage there. In fact, none of them even show the station is open, much less has "tens of thousands of riders". There is no improvement that suggests any outcome other than a redirect should happen. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Train stations are not automatically notable per community consensus. Please stop repeating this debunked claim. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still divided between Keep and Merge/Redirect. Rather than close as No Consensus, I'm relisting once more.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per the clear failure of any of the supposed sources to actually demonstrate any substantial coverage of this station. The invocation of HEY is ridiculous as the article is still exactly one sentence, to the point that vote should be ignored. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Transportation Proposed deletions
None at present
None at present
None at present
None at present
None at present
None at present
- First f Great Western → Great Western Railway (train operating company) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: //delete ]
- First Greater Western → Great Western Railway (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: //delete ]
- First Great Western Express → Great Western Railway (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: //delete ]
An extremely unlikely search term and a typo that even cannot be accidentally done. Just note that First Great Western was the former name of the current Great Western Railway JuniperChill (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [edited 09:50, 29 May 2024 UTC]
- Keep First Greater Western as that's the legal name of the company operating the franchise [21]. Thryduulf (talk) 08:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- weak delete First f Great Western. This is reading the corporate logo as "First f" which is not completely implausible given how it was rendered in e.g. what Commons calls the "corporate blue" livery (see image) but I can't find evidence it is commonly used. Thryduulf (talk) 08:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, we don't have First f as seen at FirstGroup logo so a clear reason for deletion. Plus FGW was out of business 9 years ago so its even more unlikely. But obviously keep First Great Western JuniperChill (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete First Great Western Express. It wouldn't have been an implausible way to distinguish from First Great Western Link but the only uses I can find are "First Great Western express" (i.e. express trains that happen to be operated by First Great Western). Thryduulf (talk) 08:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Agree with Thryduulf. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete first
twoand Tentative delete the third, though with the note that they're all being deleted for different reasons and I'm not sure they should've been grouped like this.
--The first one, delete due to unlikely typo.--The second, delete due to unlikely/vague search term (Greater?? And are we sure that they were talking about a railway when all they called it is a Western??? Could've been a movie for all we know)opinion withdrawn 00:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
--The third, tentative delete due to being... possibly unlikely? The term 'express' does narrow down that we're talking about a train, and "First Great Western" WAS the name of this rail line at one point. I could see this alternately being kept and tagged as Unnecessary Disambig.With the very different reasons why each one of these are being talked about, lastly, I propose handing nom a WP:MINNOW for grouping these together instead of keeping them separate, as this could've resulted in-- and could still result in-- a minor WP:TRAINWRECK. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)- @Lunamann: "First Greater Western" is neither vague nor unlikely. It is the legal name of the company, a subsidiary of First Group (who brand most of their operations "First [name of operation]", e.g. First Great Western (the branding used for this franchise and its predecessor from 1998-2015), First TransPennine Express, First ScotRail, First Capital Connect, First North Western, etc.), that operates the Greater Western franchise. 100% of Google hits relate to this company. Thryduulf (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I'll allow First Greater Western being kept, though I'll also note that this means that we are now officially in Minor Trainwreck territory. ...Ironic, considering we're talking about railways. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I did not think this thru. All of them are about railways all linking to the current GWR. I just thought that all three of them are very unlikely typos or search terms for FGW hence why I bundled them together. I initially thought WP:TRAINWRECK was talking about the notabilty stuff related to actual train crashes like the Stonehaven derailment or about whether to include it in an article like the EMR derailment on the List of rail accidents (2020–present)#2024. JuniperChill (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Nope, WP:TRAINWRECK is about how each one of these redirects has something else potentially wrong with it-- or in one case, has nothing wrong with it-- and thus we can't weigh them on the same merits, meaning that the resulting discussion gets confusing fast. I say a minor trainwreck-- and only minnowed you instead of a full-on trouting-- because there's only three redirects in the discussion, so the discussion is at least somewhat navigable.(See WP:UPPERCASE for more "Wait, I thought this shortcut meant X but it's actually talking about Y" stuff x3) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I did not think this thru. All of them are about railways all linking to the current GWR. I just thought that all three of them are very unlikely typos or search terms for FGW hence why I bundled them together. I initially thought WP:TRAINWRECK was talking about the notabilty stuff related to actual train crashes like the Stonehaven derailment or about whether to include it in an article like the EMR derailment on the List of rail accidents (2020–present)#2024. JuniperChill (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I'll allow First Greater Western being kept, though I'll also note that this means that we are now officially in Minor Trainwreck territory. ...Ironic, considering we're talking about railways. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Lunamann: "First Greater Western" is neither vague nor unlikely. It is the legal name of the company, a subsidiary of First Group (who brand most of their operations "First [name of operation]", e.g. First Great Western (the branding used for this franchise and its predecessor from 1998-2015), First TransPennine Express, First ScotRail, First Capital Connect, First North Western, etc.), that operates the Greater Western franchise. 100% of Google hits relate to this company. Thryduulf (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)