Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
(Redirected from Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/transportation)
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

Yakuza (vehicle company)

edit
Yakuza (vehicle company) (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)

No reliable independent sources cited Schtiapht (talk) 11:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple independent sources available online regarding notability of this topic. HustleBustleOPS (talk) 06:39, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stoewer V 5

edit
Stoewer V 5 (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)

Non-notable subject that I could not find anything online about. Could be redirected to Stoewer#Passenger car models. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 16:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has several citations already, this one alone takes care of WP:N.  Mr.choppers | ✎  06:18, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bracebridge West Aerodrome

edit
Bracebridge West Aerodrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable airport, no independent sources found to establish notability, only routine directory/listing entries. Jesus isGreat7 ☾⋆ | Ping Me 16:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EML Vapper

edit
EML Vapper (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 was looking for sources and just found some random ship listing databases and fan pages, none of which have any significant depth or coverage. Jesus isGreat7 ☾⋆ | Ping Me 15:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Keep per Zaptain United argument, although the article still needs to be expanded. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This article has sustained coverage in Indonesia. Even the bare bones article has 2 sources which talk about this plane crash decades after it happened. Here are all the secondary sources. There was even a photo exhibition was held to commemorate the tragedy in 2022.

https://sulteng.antaranews.com/berita/243905/komunitas-historia-sulteng-peringati-45-tahun-tragedi-gunung-tinombala

https://www.liputan6.com/news/read/400881/pada-1977-twin-otter-jatuh-di-tinombala

https://www.journastoria.com/2022/03/peringati-45-tahun-kecelakaan-pesawat.html

https://www.antarafoto.com/view/1631997/photo-exhibition-swims-tragedy-falls-plane-shoot

https://kaidah.id/headline/read/2345/sepenggal-kisah-haji-hasan-tawil-selamat-dari-kecelakaan-pesawat/

https://www.pilar.id/komunitas-historia-kenang-tragedi-gunung-tinombala-dengan-gelar-pameran-arsip/

https://mercusuar.web.id/kota-palu/peringati-45-tahun-kecelakaan-pesawat-di-tinombala-khst-gelar-pameran-foto-2/

https://www.scribd.com/doc/264231021/Gunung-Tinombala-Ferdika-Setiawan-1412100052

https://infoaktual.id/sastrawi/sekelumit-kisah-hasan-tawil-luput-dari-jatuhnya-merpati-air-lines-di-gunung-tinombala-1977/

https://beritapalu.id/2022/03/29/pameran-foto-mengenang-tragedi-jatuhnya-pesawat-merpati-di-gunung-tinombala/

Journalist Mengenang Husni Alatas died in the crash https://www.tempo.co/kolom/mengenang-husni-alatas-1092579, https://www.journastoria.com/2022/03/45-tahun-kecelakaan-pesawat-di.html

There are even Google Books talking about it: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=Tragedi+Tinombala Zaptain United (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a source assessment for the links provided by Zaptain United above (not including the ones about the journalist's death or the Google books). If you don't see all the references yet, it is because I am still working on assessing them.

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
"Komunitas Historia Sulteng peringati 45 tahun tragedi Gunung Tinombala". AntaraSulteng. March 29, 2022.
   Official state news agency of Indonesia   Has a significant editorial team   Is about photo exhibition only ✘ No
  Private Indonesian news portal   Has reputable processes   Covers the accident ✔ Yes
  Independent platform   Has an editorial board   Discusses a photo exhibition about the accident, not the accident itself ✘ No
  Independent platform   Looks to be an available-for-hire photo news agency   About photo exhibition, one paragraph long ✘ No
  Independent media outlet   No information available   Seems to have decent information on the accident ? Unknown
  News portal ~ Some professional editors, some press releases   Is about photo exhibition ✘ No
Mercusuar, Redaksi Harian (March 30, 2022). "Peringati 45 Tahun Kecelakaan Pesawat di Tinombala, KHST Gelar Pameran Foto". Mercusuar.
 ~ Indonesian newspaper   Has an editorial team   Is about photo exhibition ✘ No
  Unknown   Per WP:SCRIBD. Is an WP:SPS. Has AI-enhanced description. ~ Has information on the accident, but the origin of content is not known ✘ No
~ Online media website   Has an editorial team.   Has information on accident ~ Partial
  Online news site   Maintains accuracy and has small editorial team ~ About photo exhibition, limited information on accident ~ 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}}.

11WB (talk) 08:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Source analysis of the book and journalist-related sources:
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Byanto, S. (1978). Tragedi Tinombala [Tinombala tragedy] (in Indonesian). Semarang: Effhar Coy – via Google Books.
   There isn't much information to go off of.   I can't find any information on the publishing company or the author.   ? Unknown
Pusat Data Dan Analisa Tempo [Tempo Data and Analysis Center] (2020). Tragedi Twin Otter di Gunung Tinombala [The Twin Otter Tragedy on Mount Tinombala] (in Indonesian). Tempo Publishing. ISBN 978-623-339-423-9. Retrieved 29 August 2025 – via Google Books.
       ✔ Yes
National Search and Rescue Agency (2012). 40 tahun pengabdian bagi kemanusiaan [40 years of service to humanity] (in Indonesian). National Search and Rescue Agency. p. 26 – via Google Books.
   Unrelated. ✘ No
Bibliografi Nasional Indonesia [National bibliography of Indonesia] (in Indonesian). Library Development Project, Department of Education and Culture. 1978 – via Google Books.
       No preview available. ? Unknown
Al-Banjary, Syaefurrahman; Suryadi (14 March 2018). Prof. H. Muhammad Tito Karnavian, M.A., Ph.D dalam Pusaran Terorisme: Catatan dari Tepian Musi ke Puncak Tribrata (in Indonesian). Media Pressindo. p. 257. ISBN 978-602-5752-01-8. Retrieved 29 August 2025.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
       ~127 words on the accident, search and rescue, news coverage, and the fact that a film was made based on the events. ✔ Yes
  Unrelated. ✘ No
"Tak Lebih Indah dari Warna Aslinya" [No More Beautiful Than Its Original Color]. Tempo (in Indonesian). Vol. 8. March 1978. Retrieved 29 August 2025 – via Google Books.
       From the snippet view, this seems to talk about the film but there's also coverage of the crash (but without being able to access the contents of the document, I can't verify whether or not it's significant coverage). ? Unknown
  Unrelated. ✘ No
  Unrelated. ✘ No
Ensiklopedi Sunda: alam, manusia, dan budaya, termasuk budaya Cirebon dan Betawi [Sundanese Encyclopedia: nature, people, and culture, including Cirebon and Betawi culture] (in Indonesian) (Cet. 1 ed.). Jakarta: Pustaka Jaya [id]. 2000. ISBN 9794192597. Retrieved 29 August 2025.
       Unable to access the full contents of the page (though there does seem to be some coverage that can't be previewed). ? Unknown
  Unrelated. ✘ No
Warta BRI. | Issues 52-58 [BRI News | Issues 52-58] (in Indonesian). Bank Rakyat Indonesia. 1981. p. 11. Retrieved 29 August 2025 – via Google Books.
       From the snippet view, this seems to be a trivial mention. ? Unknown
  Can't find much regarding the source's independence.   Can't find much regarding the source's and author's reliability.   Can't access the full contents for verification. ? Unknown
Krisna, Asbari Nurpatria (1977). Tragedi penerbangan Andes, Tenerife, Tinombala [Andes, Tenerife, Tinombala flight tragedy] (in Indonesian). Jakarta: Kresno.
     With collaboration from Piers Paul Read per NLA.   More than likely, but previews are unavailable for verification. ? Unknown
  Not bylined.   Not much information available about the website.   ? Unknown
"Mengenang Hunsi Alatas" [Remembering Husni Alatas]. Tempo (in Indonesian). 23 April 1977. Retrieved 29 August 2025.
       Paywalled, but since this is a piece of contemporary coverage, it wouldn't count towards notability. ? Unknown
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}}.
(Tempo 2020) and (Al-Banjary & Suryadi 2018) both provide significant/in-depth continued coverage of the accident, passing WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG. Additionally, although not very relevant for determining notability, a 116-minute film that retells the accident was made (film poster). Additional sources: [1] [2]. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing this. Looks like there are at least 3 usable sources, 2 partial, 10 unknown and the remaining 11 are likely not usable. This is not many but at least we now know there are some sources. If we can find out the origin of that Scribd source, that may be usable as well (but not from Scribd directly).
This isn't enough to prompt me to withdraw my nomination outright, but it's definitely worth considering now, pending further discussion. Thanks @Zaptain United and @Aviationwikiflight! 11WB (talk) 21:13, 29 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 brings 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]
  • Keep - Yet another poorly-sourced list. With WP:NLIST being what it is, I see no justification under current policy for deletion. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks but i am confused are you saying it doesnt meet notability, and poorly sourced? actually this was lying orphan with no source for past several yrs in active ship list, both none bothered to add a source.i created it as separate as its imp. n deserves own space seeking help[ from others to add source Bonadart (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]



Stations

edit
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 all‎ to the appropriate line articles; content can be merged from history as appropriate to the scope of the target articles. Arguments that these stations are individually notable have failed to convinced editors. Sandstein 07:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]
  • Redirect all. Reliable secondary sources which offer significant coverage have not been presented, therefore these articles do not meet the GNG. Steelkamp (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mounstreip, Willthorpe, Jumpytoo, Teraplane, Mangoe, Dclemens1971, JoelleJay, Servite et contribuere, and Steelkamp: Just flagging that the content on the articles for Circular Quay and Moore Park has substantially changed since the AfD was opened, which may or may not influence any participant's decisions on whether to retain/delete/redirect. Hlmrjk (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain only Circular Quay and Moore Park. Both these two meet WP:GNG. Trams at these two locations past and present have received significant coverage from primary and reliable secondary sources (e.g. from the CQ page: digitised version of the 1981 Trolley Wire article (independent of article subject) [3] with content compiled from other primary sources i.e. [4] 2nd reference p.17)). These articles are not unacceptable WP:CONTENTFORK as a large portion of content is not duplicated (and CBD and South East Light Rail = entire modern line, Trams in Sydney = old system, Circular Quay light rail station = trams/light rail at CQ only, Moore Park light rail station = trams/light rail at MP only). Also, the arguments revolving around the existence or deletion of other articles fall into WP:WAX, as the (non)existence of other articles has no effect on this one: this is the same when mentioning quality of other articles. Arguments relying on the result of discussions about other stations are seemingly taking a WP:AON approach. The non-notability of other stations doesn't diminish that of this. Arguments based on the appearance of an article are WP:JDL and should be disregarded as this has no basis on content quality. Hlmrjk (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My 26 August !vote took place after the additions you mention, which means I based my evaluation largely on the state of what you say is an improved article. As I pointed out then, it has some fatal WP:NOR flaws. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point out exactly which IRS sources consider the light rail station commissioned in 2012 to be a "continuation" of the 19th and 20th century tram stops in Circular Quay? Not individual tram lines, but the Alfred Street station itself. Right now the article looks like a detailed history of "light rail lines that had stops somewhere in the Circular Quay precinct", with only the infobox and "third iteration" section actually being about the current station.
    Pinging @Trainsandotherthings as an editor I know to be active in train stuff who might have some insight into how these stations are all one topic. JoelleJay (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping. For light rail / streetcar stops, it really does vary. Many times the stop is literally just a sign on the street, or maybe a couple benches and a small shelter. That sort of station is seldom able to meet GNG. For the stations here, there are several things that lead me to conclude they don't meet GNG, including an overreliance on primary sources, excessive content that has zero to do with the station in question other than it happened to be on a certain line, and the fact that the pertinent information could be placed within articles such as CBD and South East Light Rail or Trams in Sydney; another option would be a dedicated article to house information on all of the stations on a line. While I appreciate the efforts to improve the station articles, much of what has been added is either more about the line than the stations or is overwhelmingly dependent on primary and/or non-independent sourcing.
    I feel I should give a few examples of what a GNG-qualifying source for a rail facility looks like, so consider these: [5] (scroll to the right page) [6] [7] [8]. What we see are independent, secondary, reliable sources which go into great detail about the subject, to the point that there can be no dispute that they constitute significant coverage. That nobody has been able to find such sources here is telling. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, to your point about multiple stations, it depends. New Haven Union Station covers three different structures, not all at the exact same ___location, but each of the two more recent buildings was clearly intended to replace the one which came before it. Tram stops tend to be spaced much closer together, so it gets more complicated in a situation where the old network was dismantled and a modern system built many decades later. I'm no expert on Sydney's light rail system, but so little is said about the first instance of Moore Park light rail station that we have no clue what it actually was. It could have been anything from a signpost to a small shelter to a full station building, but that nothing is said strongly suggests that it was little more than a signpost at the end of the line. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest that the recently added First Iteration section at Moore Park light rail station is conflating two distinct topics. The 19th and 20th century trams had 3 seperate stops in Driver avenue near the stadium entrances (none named Moore Park), several hundred meters from the current light rail stop. Those intertesed in that era of trams would be more likely to find it via the Trams in Sydney page. Your additional First Iteration content would be better merged in there if appropriate. The same applies for the Circular Quay old tram stops. Teraplane (talk) 22:30, 29 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.

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]
WP:ITSNOTIMPORTANT is a poor rationale and not what is used to determine if an article meets the WP:N to have an article. Jumpytoo Talk 02:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source Assessment table:
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}}.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Onel5969 (talk • contribs)
    • Thanks for the source assessment, Onel5969. You're mistaken about bangladeshmoments.com being the same story as ratdinnews.net, though. They're the same kind of story, but they're about two different protests three months apart. The demands of the two were similar, although the second added a demand that express trains stop at the station. I agree with you that the reliability of bangladeshmoments.com is uncertain. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to Dhaka–Jessore line#Stations as this is not important and has low quality. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 13:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm unimpressed by the rationales of the other keep !votes (and, for that matter, those of most of the redirect !votes), but come down on the keep side based on the following new sources. First, replace bangladeshmoments.com, which has no reputation for accuracy or fact checking, with essentially the same story in Gramer Kagoj, a legitimate regional newspaper in Jessore, the nearest large city.[9] They published a second, more in-depth, article about the station eight months later, by a different author.[10] A third independent, reliable source containing significant coverage of the station is [11]. If you don't like Channel 24, several national dailies published the same story.[12][13][14] By the way, every source calls it "Singia railway station" or, informally, "Singia station". No one calls it "Singia Junction railway station". So whether it is a junction station or not, I don't believe the word junction should be in the Wikipedia article title. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources provided by Worldbruce that show the subject meets GNG. Jumpytoo Talk 02:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To assess Worldbruce's sources (the earlier "keep" opinions can't really be taken into account)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Based on my own fairly extensive research into the article subject, I find that it easily satisfies notability requirements per WP:GNG. I would encourage the nominator to withdraw the nomination. ZachH007 18:10, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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=1309000652"