Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
(Redirected from Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transport)
Shortcuts
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

Merpati Nusantara Airlines Flight 516

edit
Merpati Nusantara Airlines Flight 516 (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)

This accident has little to no significant coverage and appears to be WP:ROTM. I would be interested to know if there is any more coverage outside of what is sourced in the article and what is available on Google. A redirect to Merpati Nusantara Airlines#Accidents and incidents makes the most sense to me. 11WB (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manuport Logistics

edit
Manuport Logistics (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 secondary sources cited fail WP:SIRS, see table below.

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
  Raw corporate information, see WP:CORPTRIV     Raw corporate information ✘ No
  Substantially an interview of the CEO, fails WP:ORGIND     ✘ No
  Relays company PR materials, fails WP:ORGIND     Trivial coverage per WP:CORPTRIV ✘ No
  Relays company PR materials, fails WP:ORGIND     Trivial coverage per WP:CORPTRIV ✘ No
  Relays company PR materials, fails WP:ORGIND     Trivial coverage per WP:CORPTRIV ✘ No
  Quotes from executives of companies involved, fails WP:ORGIND     Trivial coverage per WP:CORPTRIV ✘ No
  Statistical data, see WP:CORPTRIV     Statistical data ✘ No
  Relays company PR materials, fails WP:ORGIND     Trivial coverage per WP:CORPTRIV ✘ No
  Seemingly relays company PR materials, fails WP:ORGIND     Just photos ✘ No
  Could not access   Could not access   Could not access ? Unknown
  Relays company PR materials, fails WP:ORGIND     Trivial coverage per WP:CORPTRIV ✘ No
  Seemingly relays company PR materials, fails WP:ORGIND     Just pics ✘ No
  Seemingly relays company PR materials, fails WP:ORGIND     Just pics ✘ No
      No coverage of the company ✘ No
      No coverage of the company ✘ No
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}}.

JBchrch talk 13:35, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow crossing (Toronto)

edit
Rainbow crossing (Toronto) (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 merged this to List of north–south roads in Toronto#Church Street but was reverted. Unclear why we would need a separate article for this rainbow crossing. In retrospect I guess Church and Wellesley would be the best redirect/merge target for this though. It could be an on-topic, relevant paragraph there. Fram (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow crossings in California

edit
Rainbow crossings in California (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)

There doesn't seem to be anything notable about the rainbow crossings in California. They exist, just like they exist in many places around the world. Individual ones get reported in local news. Just like nearly everything gets reported in local news, be it new bakeries, school theatre productions, house fires, car crashes, ... A list of local stories about a common topic doesn't magically become a notable group topic. Fram (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: LGBTQ+ studies, Transportation, and California. Fram (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't see any sources talking about these as a group - it's largely just run-of-the-mill local coverage about individual installations. The two with significant non-local coverage are already listed at Rainbow crossing#Notable permanent installations. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Essentially a list in the form of an article. And I don't see any merit in a list of just California locations. (WP:NOTDATABASE) -- BriefEdits (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Merge to Rainbow crossing article as an ATD which seems like a logical and viable target. Netherzone (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge to Rainbow crossing. After four articles were made for individual rainbow crosswalks following news that they were ordered to be removed, I merged them to Rainbow crossings in Florida since this news affected them as a group and they aren't individually notable. This page replicates that, but colored crosswalks, including rainbow crosswalks, are pretty common now and aren't particularly notable even as they receive some routine local coverage. If there are too many of these to list in the main article, I'd suggest splitting the table there to a List of rainbow crosswalks and allow for a larger table with a bigger description column, but having articles for each jurisdiction is unnecessary and both of these can be merged. Reywas92Talk 23:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to lose any sleep if articles about rainbow crossings are redirected/merged, but it is super disappointing how much pushback is being given to any attempts at expanding coverage on this topic on Wikipedia. There's pushback on standalone entries (even though we have some for similar individual Black Lives Matter street artworks), pushback on expanding the table in the parent article, pushback on forking out List of rainbow crossings, pushback on creating entries for U.S. states, etc. It's a shame there's not more interest in collaborating and actually improving coverage of an important topic. Since editors just keep putting up a wall of "no" here, I'm moving on to other topics. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:41, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, some of the BLM street murals perhaps could also be merged to main articles like List of Black Lives Matter street murals as well. Second, some of the BLM artworks like Black Lives Matter street mural (Indianapolis) are unique pieces of art that are actually copyrightable designs and there are not as many of those, whereas most of the rainbow crossings are nothing but six colors of stripes and have been copied to dozens of cities around the world. Some of the BLM art was designed and created by artists and are mostly on a much larger scale, whereas many of the rainbow crossings are very simple and now quite common. I love to see these in gayborhoods and elsewhere, but very few are actually artistically interesting, and routine local coverage that the streets department is using multicolored thermoplastic instead of white isn't always that significant. So, no I don't think there need to be either standalone articles or perhaps dozens of state- or region-based lists. I would support expansion and potential split of the primary list now though. Please realize that the issue isn't always a lack of interest in a topic, but that most editors don't think there need to be standalone permastubs or too many split lists about every little thing. — Reywas92Talk 17:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Another Believer, the word "pushback" which you mentioned five times in your comment above is a jarringly negative term. Speaking for myself, I want to make it clear that I am not "pushing back" against anything whatsoever. Offering a viable and logical "alternative to deletion" in any deletion discussion is indeed positive collaboration (even if you disagree, it is not a "shameful" lack of collaboration nor a "wall of no." I know you mean well, however is not necessary to personalize or polarize this.
    Netherzone (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Netherzone I mean no offense and I'm not trying to polarize. I was only pointing out that editors have decided to merge List of rainbow crossings, as well as multiple articles about individual crossings and now an article about a U.S. state with probably many dozens of crossings. Essentially, all discussions to date have resulted in traffic and content being redirected at Rainbow crossing while there's also reluctance to expand the table in the parent article. It seems contradictory to me. I just want to know how content about rainbow crossings can be improved. I am not bothered at all by these redirects or merges. I created Rainbow crossings in California based on Rainbow crossings in Florida. I thought this was a great idea! I also think some crossings have received enough coverage to be independently notable (particularly those in Orlando and Toronto), but others think otherwise and that's fine. I'm moving on. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:21, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Rainbow crossing. Looks like could be a good paragraph in the Rainbow crossing article. Asparagusstar (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Rainbow crossing: No reason for this to be a separate article. Maybe List of rainbow crossings could be split into a standalone article, but no need to break it down geographically. –DMartin 22:28, 26 August 2025 (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 redirect‎ to Antonov An-32#Accidents and incidents as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 13:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1986 Indian Air Force An-32 disappearance

edit
1986 Indian Air Force An-32 disappearance (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 is not notable WP:Notability because it lacks sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources WP:Reliable sources. Only one source is functional, and the other is dead (404). Therefore, the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for events and should be considered for deletion. Yousuf31 (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There is sustain coverage of this disappearance after 1986. We can add the sustain coverage to the article. Here are some sources:

https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/indian-air-force-aircraft-missing-indian-ocean-9606370/

https://fighterjetsworld.com/air/third-indian-air-force-antonov-an-32-aircraft-disappeared-in-last-33-years/14494/

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/missing-iaf-plane-all-you-need-to-know-about-the-an-32-aircraft-331016-2016-07-24

https://www.livefistdefence.com/the-lost-the-found-a-tale-of-two-indian-antonovs/

https://www.thequint.com/news/india/previous-incidents-of-an-32-goes-missing

https://www.firstpost.com/india/missing-iaf-aircraft-brings-back-memories-of-2016-1986-incidents-when-an-32-wreckage-was-never-found-age-old-fleet-awaits-overhauling-6751171.htm Zaptain United (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the other source in the article was in 2014 so that is a secondary source. There are more secondary sources talking about the disappearance years after 1986 than when it first disappeared. Zaptain United (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Indian Express article goes into great detail on this disappearance in 2024 despite no investigation ever being conducted on this disappearance or any long-term search.  Zaptain United (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
      ✔ Yes
  Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 368#fighterjetsworld.com. ✘ No
      Only briefly mentioned. ✘ No
  Only a short mention. ✘ No
      Short paragraph that doesn’t go into further details other than a retelling of the disappearance. ✘ No
      Short mention of the disappearance. ✘ No
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 have one notability-establishing source, but per WP:GNG, we need multiple reliable independent sources that provide significant coverage of the event, and as of yet, there’s only one. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. Given other sources found. I can add the following 2
* the incident is mentioned in a list here https://thefederal.com/category/states/west/gujarat/gujarat-7-major-air-crashes-ahmedabad-boeing-accident-191620 .
* Also in this book https://www.google.se/books/edition/Without_a_Trace_1970_2016/UBOWDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=1986,+an+Antonov+An-32&pg=PT165&printsec=frontcover Dualpendel (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of those establish notability. Wikipedia prefers reliable and secondary sources with editorial oversight. Yousuf31 (talk) 09:23, 25 August 2025 (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.

Aerolíneas Argentinas Flight 342

edit
Aerolíneas Argentinas Flight 342 (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)

There is unfortunately very little sourcing available on this event. This event is simply a plane that was at a short-term risk of crashing into an antenna, corrected itself and then landed safely - all of which was apparently caused by a miscommunication during a storm. With no fatalities or injuries, I just don't feel this incident is notable. The only thing I do find interesting is that this happened at John F. Kennedy International Airport, which as we know quite well is a high-risk airport to land at even without bad weather. Outside of this being a near-miss precursor to Avianca Flight 052 and the recent Potomac crash, I feel this article could be merged or redirected to List of accidents and incidents at John F. Kennedy International Airport. 11WB (talk) 01:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This event has sustain coverage pass 1981 with a book mentioning the incident in 1988 and article talking about the event 44 years later in 2025.
  • https://www.google.com/books/edition/Terror_in_the_Skies/erUrAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=
  • https://www.aviacionline.com/a-44-anos-de-la-noche-en-la-que-un-boeing-707-de-aerolineas-argentinas-casi-choca-el-world-trade-center Zaptain United (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, I suspect 'Terror in the Skies' will likely only have a trivial mention of the incident as it is 'The Inside Story of the World's Worst Air Crashes'. As this occurrence didn't result in a crash, there likely isn't much in this publication covering it. If you have a screenshot I would be interested in seeing it to determine how much content this book has on the incident. Your second reference to Aviacionline is likely reliable, however it appears everything in the Wikipedia article itself is also written on that source. Verifiability is questionable. I am not convinced currently that this incident is notable. 11WB (talk) 03:05, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. The sourcing isn't exactly what I'd call stellar, but I do think that it passes the bare minimum. It'd probably better be served as section somewhere else, but following the letter of the policy this does seem to squeak by.nf utvol (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC) Weak Merge per nom. I don't see how an incident where an airliner came within 5 miles of a building aerial and was successfully diverted by ATC is even remotely notable. I was intrigued by the two sources provided by Zaptain United, though. While the aviacionline article is interesting, I am having a hard time using it for notability. A quick perusal of that site reveals that all articles are written by two people, and it appears to operate more like a self-published blog than a reliable source for the purposes of establishing notability. The article itself is nothing more than a breakdown of a news report on the subject from the time of the incident. The book...well, it does have a chapter dedicated to this incident (it can be found on Archive.org here. However, the book itself is a highly sensationalized newspaper-stand paperback that covers air disasters of the late 1970s and 1980s; it's hardly an academic treatment of the subject and is, at best, poorly edited (you'll note the word "collission [sic]" in the table of contents). That being said, it is a published book, albeit a low quality one, that does dedicate substantial coverage to the incident. nf utvol (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this. The Aviacionline source appears to fail verifiability. I will have a look at the chapter you linked, thank you for providing this! 11WB (talk) 03:10, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per nom. I tend to agree with WP:AIRCRASH and this event just doesn't seem notable enough in terms of that essay or WP:GNG.Ryan shell (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:01, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll go with merge even though I think this could just as well be deleted as too minor to bother with. But with a couple of merge suggestions, closers will seize on those no matter what. ANd merge isn't terrible as an outcome. Mangoe (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposed page doesn't actually have the incident listed, so merge is the best ATD there is currently. 11WB (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as an Alternative for Deletion, though I think a near miss on crashing on one of the most important buildings of history, could be notable as a section, I can rarely find something else that merits a stand-alone article. Protoeus (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A minor incident, and not a ten out of ten in terms of notability, but it's clear just looking at the sources in the article that there was WP:SUSTAINED significant coverage of the event. I can also confirm the writer who wrote the aviacionline article won an award for their journalism in 2023, so I don't see any real reason to discount that source. SportingFlyer T·C 10:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    With only one entry in a 1988 book and one questionable source from this year, I don't think this incident qualifies as having sustained coverage. 11WB (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, I disagree. As I said it's not the most notable incident, but it meets our guidelines. SportingFlyer T·C 22:34, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I responded below after the new references were provided. There is continued coverage, however it is basically only one per decade and the sources themselves are either trivial mentions, self-published, sensationalised or not reliable. 11WB (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I found these two sources, with the first being contemporary (published ~2 weeks after the incident). Any thoughts?
    • Johnson, Bob (9 March 1981). "System Saves World Trade Center". Computerworld. Vol. 15, no. 10. p. 2. Retrieved 22 August 2025 – via Google Books.
    • Glenz, James; Lipton, Eric (1 August 2004). City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center. Times Books. ISBN 978-0805076912.

      It happened on a cloudy night in February 1981, when the pilot of an Aerolineas Argentinas Boeing 707, approaching New York on his way to John F. Kennedy Airport, misunderstood the air traffic controller and descended to a dangerously low altitude. The plane, headed directly toward the north tower, was already two hundred feet below its television mast and still descending. It was less than ninety seconds from impact. "Climb, climb immediately," the pilot was ordered by an alert air traffic controller named Donald Zimmerman, who was so shaken by the near collision that he went on traumatic-injury leave afterward. History is swept away so quickly in New York by the next day's news, and the next, and the next, that none of the old debates had any influence on how the trade center was seen in the wake of the Boeing 707 incident. Instead, the flush finances and newfound cultural acceptance of the towers colored the way they were seen among city leaders.

Aviationwikiflight (talk) 23:11, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this more evidence for keeping the article since we now have three secondary sources that talked about this incident. Sure no one came close to dying but there has been sustain coverage since it happened more than 40 years ago. Zaptain United (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am unaware if these are just trivial mentions or not. As for sustained coverage, the 2004 publication strengthens that point, however there still isn't much. Other editors who have !voted to merge have chosen that as an WP:ATD. I believe the best outcome for this article would be a merge to the JFK airport list of incidents. 11WB (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This incident didn't happen at JFK, though, and every single incident on the JFK list happened either on airport property or on final approach, apart from the TWA flight and Egyptair flight which arguably shouldn't be on the list. SportingFlyer T·C 22:44, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This incident happened on approach to JFK. The consensus for what should or shouldn't be included in the incidents list article needs to take place on that talk page. This AfD is about Flight 342 specifically. 11WB (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:NEVENT per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:DIVERSE. A merge may be preferable in terms of how we editorially choose to cover this topic. However, as it isn't a necessary option (ie deletion isn't a valid option so we don't have to pick an alternative), that should be decided at a WP:MERGEPROP discussion after this AFD closes.4meter4 (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For continued coverage, this incident has a sensationalised chapter in a 1988 publication, a trivial mention in a 2004 publication, and as we established here, the 2025 article is a self-published source. The continued coverage is extremely weak. This incident fails WP:DIVERSE from the first sentence, 'Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable.' This incident did not have significant national or international coverage outside of a few reports at the time (such as this one). Continued coverage and diversity of sources (and sensationalism) all come under WP:NEVENT, which this incident either doesn't qualify at all, barely meets or violates. From this, I would say this incident does not meet NEVENT. Merging the article is the best ATD there is currently, failing other sources being found. 11WB (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We've read your opinion above. Stop WP:BLUDGEONING the process by commenting after every person who doesn't share your point of view.4meter4 (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise @4meter4, you're right. I thought my replies were mostly related to sourcing but I see that how I've repeatedly replied to every participant and analysed specific policies is unhelpful and bludgeons the process. I'll do as you have said and won't leave any more messages on this AfD. Thank you for calling out this behaviour. 11WB (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Opinion is divided between Keeping the article and a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It looks to me the sources in the article and given in this AFD are sufficient for notability. The Terror in the Skies book has far more than a "trivial mention" of this incident: most of chapter 13 describes matters in detail:[1] The book is accessible online and incorrect speculation about its contents is unhelpful. The article (translated from Spanish Wikipedia) looks worthwhile in itself. I found a second New York Times article: McQuiston, John (March 1, 1981). "Air Controller in 'near miss' is still feeling shock". New York Times. (Originally posted 09:48 24 August 2025 without signature). Thincat (talk) 11:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meeting all aspects of WP:NEVENT with coverage in reliable independent sources. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Upon reading the above comments, I have decided to withdraw my nomination for merge and abstain from this AfD. I would normally have closed this AfD as speedy keep, however due to outstanding merge votes from before the relist, I am unable to do so. I didn't help this AfD as @4meter4 rightfully called out above. I wish to apologise again for my conduct here. Thank you to everyone who has participated in this AfD. 11WB (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 National Highway 66 collapse at Kooriyad, Malappuram

edit
2025 National Highway 66 collapse at Kooriyad, Malappuram (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)

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events (including most ...accidents...), whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and zero enduring historical impact.
Celjski Grad (talk) 08:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 21:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of historical ships of the Brazilian Navy

edit
List of historical ships of the Brazilian Navy (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)

Draftification because of no sourcing reverted without explanation; currently minimal sourcing verifies only a tiny part of the list. Suggest re-draftifying until the list adequately meets the core content policy WP:V. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One of the two Keeps bring up no P&G-based arguments, but we don't yet have quorum to move the page out of mainspace.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MySyara

edit
AfDs for this article:
MySyara (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:NCORP due to the lack of reliable sources on the subject. The previous AfD discussion was closed with "no consensus" but brought up concerns of the quality of reliable sourcing used in the article. At the time of writing, the majority of the cited sources are routine business announcements, such as financing developments (ref 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 24), acquisitions (ref 7, 8, 9, 10, 19, 20, 21), and business partnerships (ref 15, 16, 25, 26), that fail WP:CORPDEPTH.

Regarding the other, more substantial cited sources: Gheus noted in the discussion that ref 1 contains a disclosure for a paid article; the bulk of ref 2 is an interview with the CEO; and much of the text of ref 4 is based on the outlet's interview with the co-founders (e.g., "according to the business partners"). Bridget (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Per @Goodboyjj: sources in the first AfD, looks enough for WP:NCORP. Svartner (talk) 06:54, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There were sources identified in the first AFD that passed WP:NCORP. I'd be willing to change my mind if someone creates a source analysis table as directed at WP:SIRS and demonstrates through detailed analysis that WP:ORGCRIT isn't met by analyzing both those sources and the ones present in the article in detail.4meter4 (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    4meter4, there are some immediately apparent concerns with those sources. Goodboyjj, the article creator, presented these links with the claim that they "establish notability", and that claim was not really analyzed or challenged during the AfD. Here is a source assessment table:
Source assessment table prepared by User:Bridget
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
    WP:TRADES applies, as a business magazine associated with the Forbes brand   Forbes 30 Under 30 list entry honoring the founders and providing a brief business history ✘ No
  WP:INTERVIEW applies; as mentioned in the AfD rationale above and that of the previous AfD, the article content (not including the Q&A at the end of the article) heavily draws from the outlet's interview with the co-founders. Uses phrases such as "according to the business partners".   but note that this is a state-owned newspaper and, per Financial Times, "is seen as a mouthpiece for Abu Dhabi's worldview."   ✘ No
    WP:TRADES applies   WP:CORPTRIV applies, routine coverage of business development (based on company announcement); the lead states: "MySyara today announced plans to expand its operations and launch a new suite of services, aiming to provide car owners with more convenient and affordable ways to manage their vehicle maintenance and repair services." (original text in Arabic) ✘ No
    travel blog which states in its website description: "Discover top Abu Dhabi attractions, events, dining, and travel guides."   WP:CORPTRIV applies, routine coverage of business development (based on company announcement): "MySyara’s full range on-demand services will be made available to customers in Abu Dhabi" ✘ No
      WP:CORPTRIV applies, routine coverage of business developments; reports that "Car maintenance app MySyara secures $400,000 investment" (original text in Arabic) ✘ No
  marked as press release from company   WP:TRADES applies; "ZAWYA by LSEG is a leading and trusted source of regional business and financial news and intelligence for millions of professionals across the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other parts of the Middle East and Africa."   WP:CORPTRIV applies, routine coverage of business developments: "MySyara launches the first cloud garage network in the UAE in partnership with Mobil UAE" ✘ No
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}}.

Bridget (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bridget This is a good start. I suggest continuing with the many other materials currently cited in the article. I'll hold off responding until you are finished. Ping me when your source analysis is complete. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4: In this AfD, 32 sources have been shown to not contribute to a GNG pass. What other (SIRS) sources would you base your keep vote on, given we've looked at the ones you're citing from the previous AfD? Bridget (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bridget you have not provided specific reasoning for 32 sources in a meaningful way; only the five listed in the table. If you wish to cite WP:CORPDEPTH as a rationale you actually need to do a SIRS analysis for every source in the table. Listing a bunch of sources in your nomination and then vaguely nodding towards CORPDEPTH without actually doing a proper SIRS analysis isn't going to cut it. It doesn't sufficiently explain your thinking. If you want to claim CORPDEPTH put it in the table and give us a real analysis of why it doesn't meet SIRS. There's a reason why we have the table at that guideline. Use it to your advantage. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:14, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]



Stations

edit

Circular Quay light rail station

edit
Circular Quay light rail 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)

These articles are largely WP:CONTENTFORK of the Inner West Light Rail and CBD and South East Light Rail articles and don't justify separate articles when there are sections within the line articles covering each stop. Most of the text and cites are about the lines, and not the tram stations, thus don't meet the WP:GNG threshold.

Forseeing the WP:WHATABOUT arguments that will likely be put up, that articles exist on tram stops in other places is irrelevant to this discussion. Other than to say, some, but not all, of the tram stations in other places are converted railway stations with 100+ years of history that have evolved differently, whereas the ones in Sydney all opened at the same time as the line within the last few years and are all of the same design.

Forseeing complaints at the bulk nomination, AfDs have recently concluded on the similar Juniors Kingsford and Lilyfield articles both of which resulted in consensuses to redirect. A deletion review has seen the closes endorsed. Mounstreip (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:
Moore Park light rail station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Randwick light rail station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wentworth Park light rail station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Mounstreip (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 23:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete suggest nearly all angles have been covered in the previos AfD and following review as cited above. The small amount of relevant station information is easily contained in the head article on Light Rail, which is where most of station descritpions reside . These dedicated station articles could lead to the spin off of more stations to their own page. This causes duplication of common sections such as construction, design and patronage and locality details. The station themselves are fairly minimal constructions of a raised concrete platform, some shelter and Opal Card validating machines. While more significant than a bus stop, they are much less signficasnt than a train station. Teraplane (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    'These dedicated station articles could lead to the spin off of more stations to their own page.'
    Good. This is what I could consider to be the improvement of coverage. The duplication of information could be limited by transferring appropriate details. Meanwhile, scope would be created for expanded coverage without causing bloat to the already-long articles for the CBD&SE and IW lines. However, both sides of this argument are beside the merits of these particular articles, and might be viewed as a form of Wikipedia:WHATABOUT-ism.
    'The station[s] themselves are fairly minimal constructions of a raised concrete platform [or multiple], some shelter and Opal Card validating machines.'
    Many, many railway stations consist of this or less, without resorting to the comically small ones. Take a look at Penrose railway station or Martins Creek railway station to see what is standard in much of New South Wales. Macdonaldtown railway station a few kilometres from the city centre is also essentially this. Will Thorpe (talk) 02:51, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In the past, train station articles were presumed to be notable which allowed many articles to be created without the otherwise required sourcing; however this no longer is the case after there was consensus to create WP:NTRAINSTATION. If such articles you noted were created today or sent to AfD today, assuming no other sources existed they would also be deleted. Jumpytoo Talk 03:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Teraplane and @Jumpytoo, I wonder if either of you might reconsider your positions in light of @Hlmrjk's substantial original additions to the Circular Quay page. @Hlmrjk has been prolific in substantially improving this collection of articles over the past month, including with the creation of Moore Park a few weeks ago. To me, this demonstrates a significant scope for improvement. I have no doubt that I too could find more encyclopaedia-worthy information on each should I do enough searching. Similar should be possible with the recently-deleted Lilyfield and Juniors Kingsford pages. Will Thorpe (talk) 04:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I will add that I would like to improve these pages when I have the time. I am presently caught between this, ongoing studies and professional writing commitments. Will Thorpe (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I will reevaluate the articles once Hlmrjk have completed their works on all articles they are looking to improve on. Jumpytoo Talk 04:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.
'...that articles exist on tram stops in other places is irrelevant to this discussion. Other than to say, some, but not all, of the tram stations in other places are converted railway stations with 100+ years of history that have evolved differently, whereas the ones in Sydney all opened at the same time as the line within the last few years and are all of the same design.'
@Mounstreip, this is erroneous. With respect, it frustrates me that you have not spent a trifling matter of seconds to research the realities of public transportation coverage both in New South Wales and in most of the world.
The examples I have mentioned of London's Tramlink, the Canberra Metro and the Gold Coast G:Link all opened in the 21st century. Their stations were, with the exception of a few on Tramlink, new.
Stations most often open at the same time as the lines they are on. Wentworth Park opened in 1997, whilst Circular Quay, Moore Park and Randwick opened in 2019. None of the four stations covered by these articles are of the same design, two being current termini, one being a former terminus, and the other having a sizeable section on the peculiarities of its design.
These are not tram stops, which are mere bus stops with a sign and potentially a small shelter. They are light rail stations, far closer to heavy rail stations, and often larger and more patronised than numerous examples of such. This distinction is the difference between Melbourne's tram system and Sydney's light rail system, which sits alongside the examples I mentioned. They have the same facilities as heavy rail stations and are not request stops.
Arguments which are likely to emerge based on WP:GNG are flawed. One of the recent deletion reviewers noted that if they had seen an AfD nomination for Ashfield or another heavy rail station, they would opt to delete, based on the quality of sourcing. In these recent discussions, the GNG is taken to be an infallible determinant of notability, despite it never having quite worked as such in relation to public transport coverage on Wikipedia. Hence, it is a guideline. Have a look at the reference list for the adjacent Circular Quay heavy rail station, and you will see that it is no better than that for this or the other articles. There are very roughly 500 railway station articles in New South Wales, all of them relying to some large extent on primary and self-published sources. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Transport/Sources, Transport for NSW is held to be a reliable source; all articles for operational railway stations rely on it, besides others for ferry wharves and bus services. So, in this regard, there is nothing peculiar to these articles which should make them disqualifying when the same is fine in >500 other examples.
Some of these articles have been expanded recently, demonstrating that there is scope for their continued improvement – even though they are already above the standard of numerous, much older station articles. The articles for the CBD and South East Light Rail and the Inner West Light Rail lines are already long, and to merge all stations into these articles will discourage further expansion and improvement of coverage. What is possible for these stations is possible for others. If all stations were covered as well as they can be or could be in the future, these line articles would become bloated.
Will Thorpe (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Circular Quay to Circular Quay railway station, Moore Park to CBD and South East Light Rail#Moore Park, Randwick to CBD and South East Light Rail#Randwick, and Wentworth Park to Inner West Light Rail#Wentworth Park Ignoring the noms error in that the DRV has not been closed as endorse yet, I wasn't able to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:NTRAINSTATION for any of the light rail stations. For Moore Park I only found this. For Circular Quay we can add the details to the railway station complex that the light rail station is a part of, and for the other articles the existing prose at the line articles I feel is a good solution for these non-notable stations; if the stations list starts overpowering the rest of the article they could be split to something like List of Sydney light rail stations or something similar. Jumpytoo Talk 03:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jumpytoo, the operative phrase in WP:NTRAINSTATION is 'may be notable'. Unfortunately, you will find that half the railway stations covered in New South Wales do not meet the stipulations of GNG. There is, however, 'subject-specific' criteria – to an extent.
    Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Transport/Sources, Transport for NSW is held to be reliable. Its usage is accepted, and every railway station article in New South Wales relies on it. Many have little else.
    I have generally taken the option of integrating light rail station information into existing heavy rail station articles, but Circular Quay is an apt exception, because it is also a ferry wharf. Both are important interchanges.
    Transferring the bulk of station info to a dedicated list of Sydney light rail stations is not an ideal solution, I think, nor would be independent lists for each of the two lines. There would still be a limited scope for coverage due to the bloat that would result from all stations being covered as well as they might be. Will Thorpe (talk) 03:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Transport for NSW is reliable yes, but it is not WP:INDEPENDENT, which is required for it to qualify as a GNG source. It is only usable to cite sources of fact and not for notability assertions. And yes, a large portion of the railway articles we have fail GNG as currently presented because they were created in the past where it was presumed they were notable, only recently there was consensus that train stations do indeed have to meet GNG. They only survive because generally it is a hassle to go through old articles and building the case that they do not meet the current standards. Jumpytoo Talk 04:10, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Content forks are generally acceptable. This is neither a POV fork nor a Wikipedia:REDUNDANTFORK ('All content forks are redundant, that's their nature, even the acceptable ones'). Will Thorpe (talk) 03:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have edited the page to include information on the former tram stops of which the light rail station is related to. I disagree that this information should be moved to Circular Quay railway station, as the trams existed for 50+ years consecutively before the station opened and were operated independently of the station. There is still more information that can be included for this, and I have yet to add information to Moore Park light rail station. Hlmrjk (talk) 03:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that none of the information I included was duplicated from any other article, as I wrote it on the spot. Hlmrjk (talk) 03:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hlmrjk when do you intend to add information for Moore Park? Will it fall within the seven-day standard AfD nomination period? Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Each one to their respective line and specific section in line with other stations and per WP:CHEAP, WP:ATD, and WP:BLAR. Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Ignoring the noms error in that the DRV has not been closed as endorse yet. No it hadn't been closed, but it was 4-0 at the time and by the time the review was withdrawn, it was 9-0. The lack of policy based arguments made by those seeking to retain meant the original close was unlikley to be overturned.
This is erroneous. With respect, it frustrates me that you have not spent a trifling matter of seconds to research the realities of public transportation coverage both in New South Wales and in most of the world. Not true, opinions of others suggest that maybe I have just read the room a bit better. Perhaps as others have suggested, it's your lack of understanding of Wikipedia policies and constant WP: BLUDGEONING that is wearing thin.
The examples I have mentioned of London's Tramlink, the Canberra Metro and the Gold Coast G:link all opened in the 21st century. Their stations were, with the exception of a few on Tramlink, new. Many of the Tramlink articles are at best, basic, Church Street and Wellesley Road for example, confirm their existence, but little more. Looking at the members of the Canberra and Gold Coast tram stop categories, most are no better (and in some cases worse) then the recent Sydney ones redirected. That they survive is more likely because their existence has never been challenged, rather than having received a ringing endorsement. Mounstreip (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a right to respond in good faith directly to any comment, and will certainly do so for ones that explicitly or implicitly refer to me. I have not responded to every comment; what I have done is engaged in the discussion as I have seen fit. Per WP:BLUDGEONING, all editors 'should have the chance to express their views within reasonable limits.' I have engaged with respect and courtesy, including in my interactions with you, which is precisely what is advised by WP:CIVIL. It seemed to me that you were unaware of the realities of public transportation coverage (since you had responded to me in your nomination with an argument which was generally incorrect or insignificant) and since I was wrong in that regard, I apologise.
Maligning an editor for a 'lack of understanding of Wikipedia policies' is against the spirit of WP:GOODFAITH and WP:CIVIL. The correct thing to do if you find that I misunderstand or am unaware of a policy is to inform me! I can and have responded to such. There is no fairness in expecting an editor to innately know all policies. I would not expect you, being an editor with 52 contributions, to know all policies and I would not hold that against you so long as you were civil and respectful. (Perhaps you have another legitimate account?)
Will Thorpe (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Singia Junction railway station

edit
Singia Junction 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)

Disputed redirect without rationale or improvement. A couple of brief mentions of the station, but zero in-depth coverage. Searches turned up zero in-depth coverage. One of several articles created by this same editor which are poorly sourced. Will nominate them separately since they probably all need independent evaluation. Onel5969 TT me 16:36, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This station was built in 1882 as part of the Calcutta–Jessore–Khulna line. Since then, the station has played an important role. After the Dhaka–Jessore line was completed in 2024, its importance increased significantly, as it is now used as an alternative to Jessore Junction for trains departing from Khulna towards Dhaka. Therefore, I believe it meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. If you require citations to support these statements, please let me know, and I will provide reliable sources. Thank you. Stud.asif (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide the reliable sources that you say show the importance of the station? Jumpytoo Talk 02:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Opinion is divided between Keeping this article and Redirecting it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Prothom Alo
       2 brief mentions ✘ No
dhakatribune.com
       ✘ No
ratdinnews.net
       ? Unknown
banglapedia.org
       ✘ No
bangladeshmoments.com
       Same story as in source #3 ✘ No
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}}.

Transportation Proposed deletions

edit

The following Transportation-related Proposed deletions are active: None at present List newer discussions at the top of this list.

edit

None at present

edit

None at present

edit

None at present

edit

None at present

edit

None at present

edit
  • None at present
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Transportation&oldid=1308169347"