Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. Edit this page 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.
  2. 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.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

Additional debates categorized as dealing with Transportation related issues may also be listed at Category:AfD debates (Places and transportation).


Transportation[edit]

Ward Thomas Removals[edit]

Ward Thomas Removals (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)

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGSIG. The FT article is an interview with the founder. Wikilover3509 (talk) 6:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

November 2021 English Channel disaster[edit]

November 2021 English Channel disaster (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)

The article concerns a single incident of the ongoing English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present) and does not need to have its own article. Firsttwintop (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (at least for now) - I could be wrong but it being the most deadly of these reported incidents makes it notable right? Maybe in the future if (heaven forbid) something else happens that may not ring true but right now it is. 2406:5A00:CC0A:9200:F885:F46D:3F46:5787 (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main article notes the incident properly: "On 24 November, the deadliest incident on record occurred. An inflatable dinghy carrying 30 migrants capsized while attempting to reach the UK, resulting in 27 deaths and one person missing. The victims included a pregnant woman and three children.". It would therefore fortify the request for it to be deleted simply because it lacks notability and it is not news. It is not appropriate in the context of the main article to create a standalone article for this one incident. Firsttwintop (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asarva–Udaipur City Intercity[edit]

Asarva–Udaipur City Intercity (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 to meet WP:GNG in any way, [1] which the article cites is just a list of train times. Sohom (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gidonb, I did search for sources, the only ones I found was [2] which is doesn't actually mention the Intercity train at all, which is why it isn't mentioned in my nom statement. Sohom (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the additional research. Could we perhaps change to the railroad rather than a service on it? gidonb (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, I found no sourcing on this unnamed train routing (the "name" is literally [TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] Intercity). As an aside, I don't get how in general Wikipedia decided to have articles on nearly all train routings in India, it's like trying to make an article on every generic intercity rail service in Europe (ex. trying to make an article based off this new UK service), which we don't do. Jumpytoo Talk 03:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bowdon Railway[edit]

Bowdon Railway (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 couldn't establish that it meets WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Georgia (U.S. state). Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A good amount of coverage in books and newspapers. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the article is in a sorry state, a quick search on Google books shows plenty of significant coverage, making this easily clear GNG (and most railroads do). I have added a reference and expanded the article slightly, I will likely continue this work in the next few days. There's enough to write a proper article here. Unfortunately there's only one of me and many railroads with sorry-looking articles on Wikipedia. Compare what Waycross Air Line Railroad looks like today with what it looked like before it was brought to my attention: [3]. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added some sources and text as well. Mackensen (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cavalcade station[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    I did not realize this was nominated by a sock. I am ok with speedy keeping this @Thryduulf. I’ll do a merger discussion for the set later. Garsh (talk) 06:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The other stations on this line seem to have similar sourcing/depth of content. Is there any particular reason you focused on this station specifically for this AfD? Jumpytoo Talk 21:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice to re-nom by a non-sock and per Thryduulf. Jumpytoo Talk 20:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without prejudice to a merger discussion for all the stations on the line. It makes no sense to treat one member of the set differently to the others, and especially deleting just one will seriously harm the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I strongly doubt this is notable, AfD filer is a sock and I'm inclined to say this should be closed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As @Garsh has expressed a good-faith recommendation to delete this can't be speedily kept for being a bad-faith nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an interesting AFD. It's a less of a surprise when there is an AFD for a small station closed for decades or that had infrequent service but this is an active light rail station in the United States with frequent service. That being said, I can find very little information about the station. I can't even find station area plans for this station or others. Looking at the map and the StreetView, it looks little more than a tram stop and there are vacant trash-filled lots across the street. This suggests to me that there likely is very little to know about the station. I would prefer that this AFD get bundled with other Red Line extension stations opened in 2013 which all appear almost identical. -Eóin (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Thryduulf, it makes no sense to delete this article and keep other near-identical ones for the other stations on the line. If somebody in good faith feels strongly enough to bring the full set of stations on this line to AfD (or likely more sensibly to propose merging) I'd not necessarily be against that. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 18:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bridges construction[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Gotcha. Obviously not disputing that aspect. DMacks (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Hmm. Having something on this seems a good idea. Not sure what we have is it. But not sure it's unsalvageable either. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (selectively) into bridge. The overlap is too great. gidonb (talk) 01:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or Merge any previously unused reliable sourcing into Bridge). Agree with DMacks view ("many different types of bridges, each with own construction method, and each already has its own article"). Paul W (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Tanay bus accident[edit]

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)[reply]

  • Merge - Per nominator
TheNuggeteer (talk) 09:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 nations versus developing nations. This nomination raises a major equity concern. gidonb (talk) 10:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Satisfies WP:LASTING, accident led to nationwide reforms on field trips and other off-campus activities throughout all school levels up to college in the Philippines in both private and public institutions – instituted after the ban was lifted.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect to List of traffic collisions (2000–present); Wikipedia is not a collection of news stories. I'll gladly change my !vote if anyone can find at least two retrospective sources to demonstrate sustained coverage, as opposed to news articles and updates. Whether people died or whether it happened in the Philippines are not reasons to keep an article, as I'm sure the other !voters are well aware. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be kept by EVENT. The rest is just something to keep in mind. A general concern. gidonb (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Nueva Ecija bus accident[edit]

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)[reply]

Hariboneagle927, you might want to specify whether you want to delete or merge, merging assumes that a redirect will be made to preserve the page history. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it is.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EconomyBookings[edit]

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)[reply]

  • Delete for reasons stated. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete as per all of the above. TH1980 (talk) 02:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NCORP, per above evidences. Dejaqo (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An article on a car-hire intermediary site. After tagging this to query notability, I had been considering bringing it to AfD after a few weeks. The text and references are promoting the company, its affiliate program, etc. (e.g. the press release at kursors.lv). There are some Reddit comments about service quality but customer comments, good or bad, do not establish notability here. I am not finding better for EconomyBookings or Bookings Group; fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 09:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Engineering[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Trichy Tollgate[edit]

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)[reply]

Simpasture railway station[edit]

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)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a difference of opinion on the quality of the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Demons Bridge railway station[edit]

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)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail Eastern Region departmental locomotives[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep – there is a whole chapter devoted to this subject in volume 10A of Locomotives of the LNER. I have added this source as a reference to the article, along with one for each main section. I don't mind expanding it to one citation for each loco, but it a fair amount of work, and it would be a waste of my time is the article is deleted...
The source also states the location the locos were used at.
This is also part of a series of three articles – the second covers the Southern Region and the third every other region. — Iain Bell (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need a series? These are just lists, and British Rail departmental locomotives could easily hold the entire contents of this article if people think it's worth including in the encyclopedia. Splitting them up seems arbitrary and not particularly helpful. We don't need three articles where one would do. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail DHP1[edit]

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)[reply]

  • Delete: without sources. Nothing came up on Google. RolandSimon (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete: There just isn't anything written about this that I can find [4], a photo there, and [5], 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • Keep or merge British Rail Class 17 or Clayton Equipment Company are the obvious places to look for a mention, but there isn't any there (the latter has a see also, the first has nothing). It's mentioned in the table at List of British Rail modern traction locomotive classes#Builders' demonstrators so that might also be a suitable merge target. Some more googling has found some things that prove existence and verify some of what is in the article:
      • [6] a primary sources, but it verifies it was a "Prototype 1500HP BoBo Diesel Hydraulic", the drawing contains a copyright date which might be useful but I can't read it.
      • [7] indicates that there is a lot more information available from the manufacturer, but being primary that would all speak to verifiability not notability.
      • [8] This copy of a Railways Illustrated article (see PDF page 3) has a small amount of information, and presumably counts as a secondary source.
      • [9] A review of this book indicates that it includes information about the DHP1, but as I don't have a copy I can't say too much.
      • [10] This forum post has some quotes from an article in Classic Diesels and Electrics magazine issue 3 (December 1997/January 1998) described elsewhere as "Major", it also notes that there was at least a drawing in Modern Locomotives Illustrated No 174. I've not been able to find either magazine online. However, combined with the number of models of it that exist, I'm satisified that notability is demonstrated. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      After thinking about this a bit more, I now think that Clayton Equipment Company would be the best place to merge this to as most of the sources frame it in the context the manufacturer, the relationship to Class 17 is limited and not only does the list article not really having anywhere great to put a section of prose it feels a bit undue to have that much detail about an individual entry. As for whether to merge or keep as a stand-alone article, I might be leaning towards the former but I'd not describe either as a clear preference at this point. Thryduulf (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    If this conclusively exists, a redirect wouldn't hurt, but the question is where do you redirect it to? I don't think this is mentioned in any other article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See also my newer comment above, but there is a mention at List of British Rail modern traction locomotive classes#Builders' demonstrators. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This looks like a clear delete but additional sources were brought to the discussion yesterday and it would be nice to have them assessed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Not a single source provided to support the locomotive's existence. ADifferentMan (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a picture of it above in my link, but that's not helping notability. It exists. Oaktree b (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ADifferentMan I provided 5 sources above that prove it exists. It's less clear whether it is notable enough for a stand-alone article, but it's not a slam-dunk no (or yes) and existence is not in doubt. Thryduulf (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of preserved Boeing aircraft[edit]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    I don't have any size concerns here, nor issues with the length of the table or column/text width. Even if the retired craft on display is preferred, I would not remove images of service. Reywas92Talk 01:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    Part of the problem is that it duplicates information that already exists. There's no need for a separate article listing preserved aircraft unless they are too long for the main article and if that is the case, then it should be broken down by airplane model, not manufacturer. You could argue WP:MERGE into main articles or separate into dedicated articles each models instead of deleting it. However, in the latter case a) certain aircraft would not have sufficient numbers of entries for a dedicated article and b) that would make the manufacturer just a list of links that could be replaced by a category. –Noha307 (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had already identified and addressed this problem in my opinion above. Others have addressed it as well. gidonb (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not warrant deletion I guarantee to you. Thats why I also voted my vote as a keep. Airbus A320-100 (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    Well, yeah. This arbitrariness is another argument against these manufacturer-based lists IMHO. --Rlandmann (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I've updated the article to be based on other aircraft Boeing series aircraft, not just 7x7's 220.244.141.72 (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per @Reywas92 and @gidonb 220.244.141.72 (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I found a few sources to justify WP:LISTN through a quick google search. From the nom's perspective, I can understand how the article as written was focusing on the 707's. But AfD is not cleanup. Conyo14 (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]



Stations[edit]

Cavalcade station[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    I did not realize this was nominated by a sock. I am ok with speedy keeping this @Thryduulf. I’ll do a merger discussion for the set later. Garsh (talk) 06:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The other stations on this line seem to have similar sourcing/depth of content. Is there any particular reason you focused on this station specifically for this AfD? Jumpytoo Talk 21:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice to re-nom by a non-sock and per Thryduulf. Jumpytoo Talk 20:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without prejudice to a merger discussion for all the stations on the line. It makes no sense to treat one member of the set differently to the others, and especially deleting just one will seriously harm the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I strongly doubt this is notable, AfD filer is a sock and I'm inclined to say this should be closed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As @Garsh has expressed a good-faith recommendation to delete this can't be speedily kept for being a bad-faith nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an interesting AFD. It's a less of a surprise when there is an AFD for a small station closed for decades or that had infrequent service but this is an active light rail station in the United States with frequent service. That being said, I can find very little information about the station. I can't even find station area plans for this station or others. Looking at the map and the StreetView, it looks little more than a tram stop and there are vacant trash-filled lots across the street. This suggests to me that there likely is very little to know about the station. I would prefer that this AFD get bundled with other Red Line extension stations opened in 2013 which all appear almost identical. -Eóin (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Thryduulf, it makes no sense to delete this article and keep other near-identical ones for the other stations on the line. If somebody in good faith feels strongly enough to bring the full set of stations on this line to AfD (or likely more sensibly to propose merging) I'd not necessarily be against that. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 18:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 keep‎. Owen× ☎ 23:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stillington railway station[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep Additiomal sources have been added. Deleting just one station article on a line doesn't make a good reader experience as it creates inconsistency and breaks the adjacent stations navigation templates. Garuda3 (talk) 08:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Garuda3. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Garuda3, I especially agree that we should not delete just one of the stations on this line. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 18:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Garuda3@Necrothesp@UkPaolo: The additional sources that have been added still do not add up to a GNG pass. None of the sources have significant coverage of the station: three of the six don't mention it at all, and the other three have only trivial mentions or a few bullet points. See the source analysis:


Source assessment table: prepared by User:Pi.1415926535
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://books.google.com/books?id=VE5CAQAAIAAJ&q=stillington+railway+station+clarence+railway Yes Yes No Trivial mentions of the location ✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-61853202 Yes Yes No Does not mention the station ✘ No
https://books.google.com/books?id=1xdKAQAAMAAJ&q=stillington+railway+station+clarence+railway Yes Yes ~ The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail ~ Partial
https://books.google.com/books?id=8TEEAAAAQAAJ&q=stillington+railway+station+clarence+railway Yes Yes No Does not mention the station ✘ No
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/20205553.rail-stations-open-north-east-2035/ Yes Yes No Does not mention the station ✘ No
https://www.stillington-whitton.com/history.php Yes Yes ~ The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

We don't arbitrarily keep articles that fail GNG simply because other articles link to them. When there's a set of existing articles that are very similar, yes, it makes sense to discuss them as a group for consistency (especially if they're marginal on notability). But that's not the case here - this is a newly created article that's a clear GNG fail, and there's no consistency with nearby articles (some of which are at AfD, and others absolutely would not survive AfD). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Pi.1415926535 I've been around a while, I do understand how this place operates, and I do hear what you're saying and your concerns. I nevertheless respectfully retain my opinion that this article should be kept, and that our encyclopedia is improved for so-doing. Personally I do find the article to be consistent with articles on other stations on the line, and would be annoyed by the inconsistency of deleting one of these seemingly quite arbitrarily. Clearly folks are entitled to disagree, and express opposing views; that's the purpose of these AfD discussions after all. I'm not sure it is entirely reasonable to state other articles "absolutely would not survive AfD" though, this one appears to be surviving quite well so far... └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 16:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP: Consistency and per WP: Notable. As it's got coverage in quite a few books and articles. DragonofBatley (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2024 (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.

Saltersgate Cottage railway station[edit]

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)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simpasture railway station[edit]

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)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a difference of opinion on the quality of the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Demons Bridge railway station[edit]

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)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation Proposed deletions[edit]

None at present

Transportation-related Images and media for Deletion[edit]

None at present

Transportation-related Miscellany for deletion[edit]

None at present

Transportation-related Templates for Deletion[edit]

None at present

Transportation-related Categories for Discussion[edit]

None at present

Transportation-related Deletion Review[edit]

None at present

Transportation-related Redirects for Discussion[edit]

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 28. (edit | history)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 9#First f Great Western

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Transportation&oldid=1228643866"