Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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]

Horelica Tunnel

[edit]
Horelica Tunnel (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)

Stub doesnt meet SIGCOV, can be merged into D3 motorway (Slovakia) article Soybean46 (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al Waab station

[edit]
Al Waab 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)

Redirect to Gold Line (Doha Metro). The only thing approaching WP:SIGCOV I found was this, most of which isn't even specifically about the station in question. JTtheOG (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HornBlasters

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
HornBlasters (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 private company (if clever at marketing); fails WP:NCORP with insufficient WP:SIGCOV. We have a single example (in the Tampa Bay Times). The rest of the coverage is niche WP:TRADES magazines that don't contribute to notability ([1], [2], [3]) and a thinly disguised press release (original here). A WP:BEFORE search turns up more of the same, along with a bit of thin churnalism (example) about the company's viral marketing stunts that focuses more on the effects of the stunts than on the company itself. Given that this is the third deletion discussion for this page, if the outcome is "delete" I'd ask participants to consider supporting SALTing so future attempts go through AfC and don't waste the community's time. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: The article fails WP:NCORP as it does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that are necessary to establish notability. The majority of the references are either niche trade magazines, promotional press releases, or articles focusing on marketing stunts rather than the company itself. The only potentially notable source (Tampa Bay Times) offers insufficient depth or detail to support notability. Given that this is the third deletion discussion, a consensus to delete with a recommendation to SALT the page is appropriate to prevent further recreation without substantive improvements.--Abhey City (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Jfire (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company and GNG/WP:NCORP requires in-depth independent content *about* the *company* that is more that merely regurgitating quotes and interviews or press releases or other information provided by the company. Given this is the third iteration of this topic, I'm of the opinion that serious consideration should be given to SALT the topic. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or soapboxing. While generic "coverage" exists, none of the references in the article contain in-depth independent content and I'm unable to locate anything that meets the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 14:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chetak helicopter crash at INS Garuda

[edit]
Chetak helicopter crash at INS Garuda (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)

An unnotable and routine accident. No significant coverage and no lasting effects. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 19:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ulukent railway station

[edit]
Ulukent 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)

The Turkish article does not have good enough cites to show that this station is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hatundere railway station

[edit]
Hatundere 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)

The Turkish article only has primary sources and does not explain how it is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Egekent railway station

[edit]
Egekent 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)

There is only one secondary source in the Turkish article and that is not specifically about this station Chidgk1 (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rafz train crash

[edit]
Rafz train crash (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:EVENT. Almost 10 years later, all the coverage is from 2015. No lasting coverage or WP:EFFECT. A zero fatality incident. LibStar (talk) 05:51, 22 January 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Transit 6539-6549

[edit]
New Jersey Transit 6539-6549 (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)

A non-encyclopedic article about a group of 11 buses, with such detail as their license plate numbers. Alansohn (talk) 12:57, 21 January 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.

Salty dog (slang)

[edit]
Salty dog (slang) (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:NOTDICTIONARY. As an alternative to deletion, maybe this could redirect to a Slang section in Salty dog that lists it as a nickname for a sailor or US Marine. BaduFerreira (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Orbic Air Eurocopter EC130 crash

[edit]
2024 Orbic Air Eurocopter EC130 crash (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 aviation accident; though it resulted in six fatalities and no survivors, it doesn't meet the notability for events. Helicopter accidents are also common in aviation. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 13:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator is currently blocked for what looks like a confirmed sock. – The Grid (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. But in this particular instance I think their nomination was justified, and their block shouldn't affect the outcome. For the avoidance of doubt, I stand by my merge vote (though on second thoughts I'd also back outright deletion, in that the utility of keeping a redirect is minimal). The only thing notable about this accident is the presence of notable people on board. Even if one admits that it could pass GNG on that basis, a merge still makes sense per WP:NOPAGE. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thai Flying Service Flight 209

[edit]
Thai Flying Service Flight 209 (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)

Based on run-of-the-mill aviation accidents, general aviation accidents that resulted in fatalities became common in aviation. While this resulted in nine fatalities and no survivors, though tragic, the accident relates to general aviation. The article doesn't meet the notability for events. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 21:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep Does not relate to general aviation, this was an airline-operated flight and is notable because of the oddity of the crash, something mechanical on board definetly failed aboard this crash, just looking at the nature.
We should wait on deleting this until a preliminary report or a final report are released as we have no foundation currently to show this is unnotable. Low fatalities do not determine notability.
@TG-article Lolzer3k 21:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right now I'm a weak delete - this did generate international news but I don't see any LASTING coverage after a simple BEFORE search. If that can be produced, I'll happily change to keep. SportingFlyer T·C 00:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It was an airline flight with fatalities, and It recieved decent coverage. I think anyways we should wait for some kind of report to come out. Signor Pignolini 15:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT – Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". None of the sources are secondary in nature since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself, with none of them providing significant or in-depth coverage of the event. I'm not sure what a preliminary/final report could bring other than maybe possible lasting effects, but regardless, we're judging the event's notability on what coverage we currently have, not on what coverage and effects we could possibly have, and as of yet, this event isn't notable enough to warrant a standalone page. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was news at the time and coverage was, for some time and to some extent, WP:LASTING. It's notable and should be kept. Eelipe (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just wondering, doesn't WP:LASTING talk about lasting effects? If so, wouldn't WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE be the correct term? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True. Thank you for the correction, I meant WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE! Eelipe (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•Weak Keep I think we should wait out the delete until we get the preliminary report or the final report on the accident and then we go from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.247.174.146 (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Tarco Air Antonov An-24 crash

[edit]
2010 Tarco Air Antonov An-24 crash (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)

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary in nature since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have significant, in-depth, nor sustained continued coverage of the event itself other than, "After touching down, the plane crashed with X casualties", with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sudan-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Transportation. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A scheduled passenger flight which ended in fatalities and safety recommendations. The requirement for sourcing here is difficult because this occurred in a very remote part of the world - deleting this would further WP:BIAS. SportingFlyer T·C 18:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also note that the article is currently adequately sourced. SportingFlyer T·C 18:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    None of this is based on policies or guidelines. There is no such policy that states that an event is solely notable if it was "A scheduled passenger flight which ended in fatalities and [resulted in] safety recommendations". WP:BIAS does not state that we should ignore notability guidelines simply because it happened in a country where coverage is limited. I've seen better articles than this get deleted and the mere fact that the article is well referenced does not make it all the more notable. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're applying our rules too strictly. All of the sources in the article are American, but this happened in Sudan and the Sudanese performed the investigation. Furthermore it is fairly obvious that a regularly scheduled passenger plane service which ended in fatalities is likely notable - heck, multiple American sources picked it up even though it occurred in rural Sudan. The only possible reason to delete at this time is that there isn't demonstrated lasting coverage in English-language sources... SportingFlyer T·C 20:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So? You have yet to actually mention a policy or guideline to support keeping the article. An investigation was performed after a plane crash - That is routine. The news covered the accident without any further coverage - WP:NOTNEWS/WP:EVENTCRIT#4. It's been more than a decade since the plane crashed and there clearly is zero continued coverage. If your only argument for keeping is the aforementioned, then clearly one could create hundreds of articles on non-notable passenger flights on the sole basis that they received coverage for less than a week and had a final report published. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 05:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course I've cited policy - the article as written meets WP:GNG as it was a plane crash on a commercially scheduled flight which resulted in fatalities, which received international coverage. The only reason to delete this is if WP:NOT applies, and I don't think it does - the nature of the event and the location of the event means follow-up coverage is likely to be local and in a language other than English, and the nature of this specific crash means that deleting it would further implicit WP:BIAS by excluding plane crashes from parts of the world where finding coverage is difficult, even if the crash which would otherwise be notable. Your other argument is wrong as well - this is very different from a general aviation crash in the United States, so keeping this wouldn't open any floodgates. SportingFlyer T·C 06:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Existence is not notability so the fact that a plane crashed, wherever in the world, is not proof of notability unless the sources demonstrate so. Your comment only precised "scheduled passenger flight" which basically applies to any type of aircraft that provides that service. Sudan is a country that speaks english and arabic, so that already makes it easier to search for sources, and the mere statement that there could be sources does not establish notability unless you actually give sources that provide significant and in-depth coverage after the initial aftermath of the plane crash instead of saying that "finding coverage is difficult". It doesn't matter whether or not a deletion would further implicit bias. So instead of citing WP:BIAS, which does not trump notability guidelines, please provide us with these notability-establishing source. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has already established notability with the sources in the article, we're just discussing WP:NOT. I disagree with you strongly here, and arguing further won't change anything. SportingFlyer T·C 16:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I agree with SportingFlyer. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 18:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – meets WP:GNG for me. C679 10:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no idea what everyone else here saw but the sourcing present is not adequate to pass WP:NEVENT, it is neither lasting nor in depth nor anything we look for. A remote part of the world does not preclude the non-existence of secondary sourcing. GNG is not passed because all sources are primary. There is not a single secondary source in this article! PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Swan River Seaplanes Cessna 208 crash

[edit]
2025 Swan River Seaplanes Cessna 208 crash (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:GNG and WP:EVENT. No sign of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE beyond the initial news cycle, no reason to expect WP:LASTING effects. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drafity or keep until a bit after it occurred or when the investigation is finished. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aer Lingus Flight 328

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Aer Lingus Flight 328 (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've declined a WP:G4 request on this—it can't be considered substantially identical to the page deleted in 2019—but the arguments from the 2019 deletion discussion still apply. There's nothing obvious to suggest that this is a viable Wikipedia topic.  ‑ Iridescent 13:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^
    • Gould, Jim; Rudman, Jim; Gregory, Clive; Zucchi, Louise; Downing, Mark; Peters, Carole; Clarke, Heather; Kapur, Updesh (1 February 1986). "Miracle escape of Shuttle Echo Mike". Leicester Mercury. Leicester, Leicestershire, England. p. 1. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via Newspapers.com.
    • Gould, Jim; Rudman, Jim; Gregory, Clive; Zucchi, Louise; Downing, Mark; Peters, Carole; Clarke, Heather; Kapur, Updesh (1 February 1986). "Miracle escape of Shuttle Echo Mike". Leicester Mercury. Leicester, Leicestershire, England. p. 11. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via British Newspaper Archive.
    • Byrne, Gerry (2 February 1986). "'Wind shear' may have caused Aer Lingus crash". Sunday Tribune. p. 3. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via British Newspaper Archive.
    • "Aer Lingus crash: first report". Long Eaton Advertiser. Long Eaton, Derbyshire, England. 9 May 1986. p. 3. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via Newspapers.com.
    • "Aer Lingus crash: 'The pilots were heroes'". Nottingham Evening Post. Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, England. 20 January 1988. p. 1. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via Newspapers.com.
    • Kelly, Andrew (20 January 1988). "Aer Lingus Plane Crash". RTÉ. Retrieved 18 January 2025.
    • Webster, Louise (21 January 1988). "Plane crash probe | Villagers call for quicker inquiries". Evening Telegraph. Derby, Derbyshire, England. p. 7. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via Newspapers.com.
Per WP:NTEMP, if there was contemporary significant coverage, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. Besides, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE does not give a minimum amount of duration for a subject to pass WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and two years is already more than enough to establish such notability. It's unreasonable to expect a topic to receive ongoing coverage for more than 30 years. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:NOTNEWS,

In principle, all Wikipedia articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Even when citing recent news articles as sources, ensure the Wikipedia articles themselves are not:

  1. Original reporting. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information.
  2. News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage (see WP:ROUTINE for more on this with regard to routine events). Also, while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.
  3. Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.)
  4. Celebrity gossip and diaries. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overly detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography of that person, only those for which they have notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest.
  5. Uptime tracking. Services go down all the time. Readers are not expected to check Wikipedia articles to verify service outages. For web services, readers have ample automatic options for that purpose. For meatspace services, readers should be reaching out to the people who manage the service. Accordingly, editors should not manually edit service status updates into articles as if the articles are used for that purpose. Major outages may be notable on a case-by-case basis, especially when they have a notable cause, but the vast majority of outages simply are not notable.
ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 18:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What point are you trying to make? Most of the sources are not routine nor "first-hand news reports on breaking stories". Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This was a rough landing rather than a crash and no-one had serious injuries, just scratches and bruises (a fireman crashed while driving to the scene, not part of the aircraft event itself). Not significant enough to warrant entry in any encyclopaedia that takes itself seriously.

The writing is very poor and of insufficient standard, suggesting that the broken English is a second language. Spideog (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum/clarification: While the article says in the lead "One serious injury was reported from a fireman", this injury occurred while the fireman was driving to the scene. Spideog (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just note that the aircraft was declared a hull loss since the left wing detached from the fuselage. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 05:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article mentions no hull loss or wing detachment but states, "the aircraft was relatively undamaged." The supporting citation is a report by the Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archives, which states that "the aircraft was relatively undamaged". Spideog (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't know where the Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archives got its sources since:
  • The Leicester Mercury states that the aircraft crashed in a ploughed field, and came to rest with one wing ripped off and the other badly mauled in trees on the edge of the Castle Donington race circuit.
  • The Long Eaton Advertiser states that The aircraft sustained damage to the undercarriage, nose, wings and propellers...
  • And more specifically, the Aviation Safety Network precises that the aircraft was destroyed; written off.
In this case, I wouldn't consider BAAA to be reliable since the images of the wreckage clearly show the wing detached and more importantly, the sources seem to verify that information, hence its claim that the aircraft was "relatively undamaged" seems to be completely untrue. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it was written off. The accident made Flight 328 the second hull-loss accident of a Shorts 360, after the 1985 CAAC accident. The Shorts 360 had a total of 100 fatalities, and 55 occurrences in the ASN database. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 15:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Long Eaton Advertiser states that "The aircraft sustained damage" but does not specify either scratched paint or destroyed aircraft, so that does not help us.
The Aviation Safety Network is not an official institution but is compiled by a self-described "user community", so that source carries inconclusive weight.
The Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archives in Geneva is, on the other hand, the work of an authoritative long-standing aircraft accidents professional and states the aircraft was "relatively undamaged".
You say "I wouldn't consider BAAA to be reliable" but that is a personal opinion, as is your dismissive assessment of the Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archives.
But this is a sideshow conversation relative to the identifiable policy considerations in support of deletion argued above. Spideog (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say BAAA was unreliable, I only stated that In this case, I wouldn't consider BAAA to be reliable. For the most part, the Aviation Safety Network isn't user-generated. It is only user generated if the entry itself states that one can edit the entry directly, and there is a long-standing consensus that it is reliable. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I verified the BAAA source and it states that The cockpit and passenger cabin were relatively undamaged and there was no fire. This is why one should not rely on content from a Wikipedia article when making an argument. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the above or redirect to Shorts 360#Accidents and incidents – The accident itself fails the notability for events. While the accident resulted in a hull loss, the second of that aircraft type after an accident in 1985, it still fails Wikipedia:GNG. There is a good reason to why this article was nominated for deletion, as per what Iridescent said, I've declined a WP:G4 request on this—it can't be considered substantially identical to the page deleted in 2019—but the arguments from the 2019 deletion discussion still apply. There's nothing obvious to suggest that this is a viable Wikipedia topic. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 15:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A search of the British Newspaper Archive - I can't access the articles - shows continuing coverage of the incident over two years later (Leicester Mercury, 21 January 1988, about the recommendation to change the airframe to prevent ice buildup) along with continuing coverage throughout the weeks after the incident and continued mentions later in time. Also led to airframe-related safety changes. SportingFlyer T·C 18:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I also think the delete !votes are mistaken. This clearly passes WP:GNG - there's significant coverage of this incident in a Singapore newspaper in 1986 that is currently in the article. While everyone survived and the plane was just a Short 360, it was still clearly worthy of international press. Furthermore, the accident continued to be covered locally for weeks and was mentioned years later as shown by the British Newspaper Archive, so the WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE is easily met. Since wasn't in the news for just a few cycle so isn't WP:NOTNEWS and passes the WP:NEVENT criteria. It also clearly had WP:LASTING impacts on the design of the airframe. WP:PLANECRASH specifically suggests it is not to be used in AfDs and is met anyways since this was? may have been? a hull loss and in any case resulted in changes to the airframe and icing safety, and WP:ROUTINE is for run of the mill stories which this isn't. None of the arguments for deletion actually work here. SportingFlyer T·C 18:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: per SportingFlyer. According to the British Newspaper Archives, there is continuing newspaper mentions of the accident. There are also two sources in the Google News Archive and at least 10 sources in Newspapers.com, which all add to the notability of the article. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 12:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    TheNuggeteer, you might usefully visit the article's talk page and answer some of the points raised there? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, will fix. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 03:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. See the article's Talk page. There appear to be more sources out there than have been added to the article, and despite what's in the body of the article, it appears the crash actually was significant. Aviationwikiflight might or might not get around to adding them to the article. I've added an RTÉ News report which aired when the accident investigation report was released, which included video of the aftermath of the crash, showing substantial damage - one wing appears to have been broken off, and both are damaged, as is the fuselage. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article definitely needs improvement and isn't a reliable source for gauging the noteworthiness of the crash. The RTÉ News report on the crash that Bastun referenced clearly shows that it was a significant incident and mentions that it "advanced knowledge of de-icing equipment in the industry". Cashew.wheel (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a classic example of WP:NOTNEWS. The coverage was basically in February 1986, with few follow-up news stories after the investigative report was released in 1988. Everyone lived, most with minor injuries. I don't oppose a redirect. I have no connection that I'm aware with any of the people involved, but its remotely possible. Bearian (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just not true - NOTNEWS is for routine news stories, this was even mentioned on its ten year anniversary in a Scottish newspaper (1 February 1996, Aberdeen Press and Journal), 1994 article in the Derbyshire paper, 1997 mention in an Irish paper, 2002 mention in the Irish Indepednent... this was clearly not just a story for one news cycle. SportingFlyer T·C 03:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dien Sanh train crash

[edit]
Dien Sanh train crash (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:EVENT. No lasting impact or coverage. All the sources are from March 2015. Whilst number of deaths is not a criterion, we don't generally keep articles with such a low death and injury count. LibStar (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Phachi collision

[edit]
2015 Phachi collision (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)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. The event doesn't appear to have much coverage after it originally occured, failing WP:LASTING. Let'srun (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SIGCOV. The event is only published by one reliable source Bangkokpost twice. I find it very hard to get more reports about this event even upon all reverse searches. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 20:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fuller Road

[edit]
Fuller Road (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 road, Cannot find any evidence of any notability, Fails GEOROAD and GNG –Davey2010Talk 00:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I am seeing three sources about it:
  1. Begum, Ayesha (2016) [2012]. "ফুলার রোড" [Fuller Road]. Encyclopedia of Dhaka (in Bengali). Dhaka: Asiatic Society of Bangladesh. pp. 262–263. ISBN 9789845120197.
  2. ফুলার রোডকে প্রেম চত্বর মনে করেন বহিরাগতরা
  3. ফুলার রোডে নিয়ম করে চলে বাইক রেস-স্ট্যান্ট, দুর্ঘটনার আশঙ্কা

The first source is from an encyclopedia which is notable and important for Dhaka-related topics. In this sense, the subject is notable and doesn’t fail. Mehedi Abedin 11:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are pretty much LOCALCOVERAGE and TRIVIAL pieces, Unable to view the book so unable to comment on this, imho still fails GNG –Davey2010Talk 18:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need to come to some conclusion on whether or not these sources are sufficient.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MÁV Személyszállítási Zrt.

[edit]
MÁV Személyszállítási Zrt. (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 sources found. Also fails WP:NCORP. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 04:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; agreed. I'm not sure how this article was moved out of draftspace to begin with. I don't view it as article-worthy, not without some extra sources. Madeline1805 (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hungarian State Railways (MÁV). It's the current form of that company after merging with Volánbusz. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: The MÁV Személyszállítási Zrt. was formerly known as MÁV-START, which operated under this name from 2006 to 2024 before being renamed. You can find sources from before 2024 by searching for MÁV-START. – balint36 passenger complaints 23:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GoBolt

[edit]
GoBolt (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, sourced to press releases (fail WP:ORGIND) and funding reports (fail WP:ORGTRIV). ~ A412 talk! 19:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rework. On a pure WP:GNG basis there seems to be enough reliable sourcing here to meet notability. Certainly the sourcing is pretty bad and the author may need to be trouted and/or reminded of WP:SELFPUB, but other than that it's fine as I see it. guninvalid (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The one keep comment seems mildly contradictory with itself. As of now there clearly is not a consensus for any specific course of action.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 00:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. When you weed out the bad sourcing and announcements, there are still at least two good ones, Collier's (Canada) and The Globe and Mail. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: References 17 and 18 seem to be reliable, independent, and non-churnalism. All the promotional and non-independent sources need to go, however; far too many laundered press releases and routine announcements. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete none of the sources meet NCORP requirement. as this is a company page, GNG cannot be applied here. 17 and 18 sources are only about financing, event-based and no deep enough to provide reliable coverage. --71.251.8.132 (talk) 12:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]



Stations

[edit]

Al Waab station

[edit]
Al Waab 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)

Redirect to Gold Line (Doha Metro). The only thing approaching WP:SIGCOV I found was this, most of which isn't even specifically about the station in question. JTtheOG (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Egekent railway station

[edit]
Egekent 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)

There is only one secondary source in the Turkish article and that is not specifically about this station Chidgk1 (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hatundere railway station

[edit]
Hatundere 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)

The Turkish article only has primary sources and does not explain how it is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ulukent railway station

[edit]
Ulukent 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)

The Turkish article does not have good enough cites to show that this station is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation Proposed deletions

[edit]

None at present

[edit]

None at present

[edit]

None at present

[edit]

None at present

[edit]

None at present

[edit]

None at present

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

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Transportation&oldid=1272424623"