Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation

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:

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.
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

Boronia Road

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article doesn't establish the notability of this road. As a local suburban road I don't think it's significant enough for a Wikipedia article. – numbermaniac 18:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matsya Bhaban

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:NBUILDING nor does it seem like one of the rare notable road intersections (like, for example, Hollywood and Vine). I'm not seeing anything more than passing mentions in the news. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Transportation, and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hispano-Suiza V10 Supercharged

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only two sources provided, and one of them is a dead URL link. Other source is marginal. This car was a "concept car" meaning it never went into production. Googling does not reveal significant 2ndary source coverage of this particular concept car. Any info about the car should be put into the Hispano-Suiza partent article. Noleander (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plew Trivisvavet

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. He's a low-profile businessman; this newspaper article says he "rarely shows up at social functions or even in newspaper columns." Passing mentions and company announcements are about all I can find. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Thailand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Babusar bus accident

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability, and high-casualty bus crashes are common. Fails WP:EVENT. Unable to find sustained significant coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Pakistan. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dschang bus-truck crash

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability, and high-casualty bus crashes are common. Fails WP:EVENT. Unable to find sustained coverage beyond passing mentions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Cameroon. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Peru bus crash

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability, and high-casualty bus crashes are common. Fails WP:EVENT. Unable to find sustained significant coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Peru. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 German public transport strike

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A one-day event without much lasting effect, probably fails WP:GNG A1Cafel (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Germany. A1Cafel (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a strike involving 400,000 workers which was described as "‘paralyzing’ Europe’s biggest economy" is unquestionably notable.--User:Namiba 14:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Firstly, I don't see what WP:GNG has to do with it. The sources cited clearly demonstrate sufficient coverage. All three are on the WP:RSPLIST, and by searching online I can see that more sources have covered it as well. Secondly, this was seemingly a huge strike ("the largest transport workers' action since a series of strikes in the 1990s") that did "paralyz[e] Europe's biggest economy", as Namiba points out. Spookyaki (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NEVENT says that lasting effect is a strong indicator of notability, but not having lasting effect isn't disqualifying. There's lots of good articles on Wikipedia covering events that haven't had lasting, transformative impacts on the broader world. "Lasting impacts" can be a bit relative in the context of strikes too, because they typically do have lasting impacts; it's just that they're confined to a certain part of the workforce. Viv Desjardin (talk, contrib) 01:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. But also it seems that RS from 2024 also describes lasting impact in the overall affiliation to the organizing unions: [1]. MarioGom (talk) 09:38, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, enough reliable sources have significantly covered it to meet GNG, and a strike composed of hundreds of thousands of people, even for a single day, very likely meets the "lasting effect" criteria. Even if the effect is only in that part of the workforce, that is still an impactful event.

(more citations should be added to the article, though. I'll put a cleanup template) ApexParagon (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I’ve added BBC and Reuters content to an already well-sourced article that also includes The New York Times, CNN, and Al Jazeera. We’re spoilt for choice on WP:THREE, and the event clearly meets WP:GNG. While it lasted just one day, its scale and widespread disruption received significant international coverage, meeting WP:NEVENT. HerBauhaus (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it was a significant event. The article is well-sourced. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough SIGCOV in RS. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barabız

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is unclear what this is. Seems like a simple (though incomplete) translation of a foreign word, rather than an actual topic. BEFORE is not finding anything by spelling "Barabız" or "Barabus". ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 15:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Russia. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 15:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Gervais II wreck

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This needs more WP:RS sources to support its notability. Czarking0 (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Transportation, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. "Needs more sources" is not a policy-based argument for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Other people making non policy based arguments is also not a policy based argument for keeping. Let me be more clear about what I meant. This does not meet WP:GNG Czarking0 (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It actually is a reason for speedy keeping when it is the nomination: one of the grounds for WP:SK1 is if the nominator failed to give intelligible grounds for content deletion. With this comment, now you have done so. Curbon7 (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also seems to be referred to as "Saint Gervais B" ([2]). Curbon7 (talk) 06:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Widely referenced and not just any old find but a significant one. Srnec (talk) 02:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 2600:8806:2A05:1100:1097:AFF5:4FE9:E15F (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage establishing notability per WP:GNG. ZachH007 (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TCI Seaways

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A Google search isn't pulling any sources that would show SIGCOV for TCI Seaways. Even its parent company Transport Corporation of India has barely any sources. BuySomeApples (talk) 08:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:ORGCRIT. Criteria for WP:GNG is also not met. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ORGCRIT Halley ^{luv Filipino ❤} (Talk) 01:41, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page contains numerous self-published sources, and a Google search yielded no significant coverage to demonstrate subject's notability. Fails WP:NCORP. AndySailz (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough notability. Doesn't meet WP:NCORP — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Autoship CAD/CAM

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NPRODUCT and has a severe lack of any WP:SIGCOV on the software. Only mentions I could find are not independent or are just passing mentions. (please ping on reply) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Software. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dalmatinska Street

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No particular indication of notability for this Sarajevo street. The article, which is AI-generated, really only depends on one primary source, while the other two sources don't seem to mention the street at all. JTtheOG (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Bosnia and Herzegovina. JTtheOG (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I've removed the two misleading references, which didn't mention the street at all. The one remaining reference is a couple of paragraphs in a travel website, which is not sufficient to meet notability requirements. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a two-lane street that has no credible evidence of any notability. Bearian (talk) 02:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James C. Ford Memorial Bridge

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

very short article which does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NGEO; only sources are a document on the bridge's renaming and a list of local bridges. harrz ^talk 19:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Tennessee. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep While "very short article which does not meet WP:GNG" the bridge appears to be significant and with sources that are likely out there, it would satisfy Wikipedia:NGEO.19:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)~ (comment by User:Djflem. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Modular agile transit

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The lead says "While not yet a standardized system, MAT represents an emerging idea in transportation research to address challenges". I'm not sure that an evolving, conceptual notion meets WP Notability requirements. The article reads like ad brochure for a startup ... lots of bullet points. If there is no concrete product; and if there is no international standard ... what is there? A research project? Not sure that qualifies as encyclopedic.

There are several sources listed at bottom of article, but most are not _about_ the "Modular agile transit" ... most of the sources simply support individual facts stated in the article (but the sources do not mention the M.A.T.). Noleander (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Honestly surprised to see such a poor article from such a long-time editor. Cite 1 has the wrong DOI# but should link to [3], which is a computer model about modular vehicles but is not about "agile" transit or an actual system. 2 is some totally irrelevant software source, 3 is about carsharing not transit, 4 seems relevant but is also just a model, 5 has a title that's merely about electric buses but the DOI link goes to something else, 6 seems relevant but is also just a computer model and does not use "agile", 7 is a good book but irrelevant, and 8 is also irrelevant. So the article is a lot of fluff, unsourced statements, and ref-bomb material. What is going on here? Like I understand what the article's getting at, but since it's just a research concept I agree with nom that this reads as a student article rather than something that should have a standalone page. Reywas92^Talk 02:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The faulty citations are characteristic of LLM output. With that in mind, I have to wonder if the rest of the article is LLM-generated as well. Omphalographer (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was thinking the same for this author's Repast (funeral), which I also AFDed. Reywas92^Talk 14:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As the article’s primary author, I appreciate the feedback in this AfD and have significantly revised the article to address the raised concerns. The original version was overly complex and included some irrelevant sources, which I acknowledge made it read like a promotional piece. I have rewritten it into a concise Start-class article, focusing only on the core concept of modular transit supported by two peer-reviewed sources directly discussing the topic. These sources establish notability per WP:GNG by providing significant coverage of modular transit systems in reputable journals (Transportation Research Parts C and A). I've removed unsourced claims, bullet points, and promotional language to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:MOS and clarified that MAT is a research concept, not a product, addressing concerns about its "evolving notion" status. While not a deployed system, the concept’s coverage in academic literature makes it encyclopedic, similar to other research-stage transport concepts like Hyperloop. I'm open to further suggestions for improvement. Whoisjohngalt (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for eliminating the fluff, unsourced content, and ref-bomb sources. But as I implied there's now not enough content or sources to justify a standalone article on simply a research concept. Since both sources are about autonomous transit, Vehicular automation#Buses seems like a better place for a couple sentences to include the primary sources. Reywas92^Talk 17:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - That seems reasonable, Thanks.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Franca Lehara Street

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see any particular indication of notability for this street in Sarajevo. Sources are either from government sites or fairly routine coverage of public works or buildings located on the street. JTtheOG (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Bosnia and Herzegovina. JTtheOG (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article is AI-generated as well, as acknowledged by the article creator. JTtheOG (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accident at Lac-Bouchette

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. I'm unable to find sustained significant coverage in English or French. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Canada. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the sixth deadliest traffic accident in Canadian history and the death of 19 people is not a notable event? Many lives and generations were affected by this tragic event, worthy of remembrance. 142.169.16.244 (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least merge/redirect to List of deadliest Canadian traffic accidents. I oppose the argument above. Death toll is not notability. However, there are some OK sources. This article needs to be renamed. Mentioned in this article in the Encyclopedia of Canada.... not particularly long, but not passing, and I do think being in a national encyclopedia is a claim to something stronger than a normal book. Also in this academic book [4]. Not particularly long but not passing. There are also many hits on BAnQ numérique (Quebec news archive) past 1993... some is fairly local, so it only moves the needle a bit, but if we have notability establishing sources it would help to build the article. Just a warning for anyone who tries to search BAnQ it has one of the worst search interfaces ever. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No enduring - sorry - impact, fails WP:EVENT per nom. Also WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I don't see any consensus here. In AFD discussions about accidents, often editors offer arguments on whether or not they think an event was notable. That doesn't matter. Please focus on the sources and whether there is SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Álamo bus accident

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. I'm unable to find sustained significant coverage in English or Spanish except for a single Wordpress blog. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Mexico. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kulovića Street

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks to fail WP:GNG. Not seeing evidence of the street being notable, only things related to it (the siege or buildings on it). Doesn't pass WP:GEOROAD either. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 16:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, GNG isn't at zero: [5] [6] but it's also not the strongest. SportingFlyer T·C 20:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For engaging more participation to reach a consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it passes WP:GNG. Not seeing evidence of the street being notable, only things related to it (the siege or buildings on it). Well, yes. I imagine it is only with ancient roads where the road itself might be notable. Otherwise a street will be a topic of coverage because of notable buildings on it or because of notable events, both of which the nominator has recognised. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 19:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do note that notability is not inherited. Notability only cares about significant coverage about the street itself. Buildings adjacent to a street do not automatically make the street notable, unless there is significant coverage about the street in those sources. I, personally, am not finding significant coverage about the street to meet WP:GNG. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 20:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is also mentioned here [7] and here [8]. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 04:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Girl car

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails notability guidelines and match original research; content may belong in a broader automotive marketing article or as part of a manufacturer's page. AndesExplorer (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Technology. AndesExplorer (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although the article is short on examples and may need to be at a better title, one thing it is not short on is sourcing. This concept of cars that are associated with one gender or another of the purchaser is well-established as a legit topic. Abductive (reasoning) 21:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Collins (taxi driver)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG; appears to violate WP:NOTNEWS per @162 etc.: Joeykai (talk) 01:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Joeykai (talk) 01:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unfortunately, I have to agree. This doesn't measure up to WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. 162 etc. (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, I would have been very leery of taking a taxi driven by a nonagenarian. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Three reliable sources, including BBC. Unique among cabdrivers. Received award. "His new-found fame led to widespread media interest." There's no good reason to deprive readers of this information. WP is most useful for articles about relatively obscure but still notable people. Station1 (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with the sentiment, but the word WP:notable is where the disagreement is. Even if you think there is enough to establish notability, then we fall into the realm of WP:BIO1E: his notability is only due to one "event", which is living so long and still doing his job. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside whether or not a long recognized career is an "event", WP:BIO1E considers whether there should be an article about the person, the event, or both. It doesn't contemplate no article at all. Station1 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG Halley ^{luv Filipino ❤} (Talk) 22:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nasimi (Baku Metro)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems unlikely that sources exist which show that every stop on this metro line are notable per WP:STATION. Other language WP pages are poorly referenced, at best they show the station exists in public timetables etc. WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that this metro stop is notable as it is an example of post-Soviet architecture in Azerbaijan. Most metro stations in the former Soviet Union have unique architectural features, see stations of the Saint Petersburg Metro. You would not delete a station article for the New York City Subway or the Moscow Metro so why delete this one? Zbase4 (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NTRAINSTATION says "train stations have no inherent notability and are not presumed notable for simply being train stations." I believe this applies to metro stations as well. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep I found one source:

AZERTAC (2024-06-04). Laməkan şairin metrodakı məkanı. Retrieved 2025-05-17 – via YouTube.

In addition, the Azerbaijani Wiki has two additional sources but they are both dead links & I cannot revive on Archive.org. From the titles they suggest SIGCOV & searching their former domains they seemed to be news sources so I will WP:AGF of the original Wiki authors and assume they are SIGCOV RS. Jumpytoo Talk 01:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Baku Metro. There is nothing for a stand alone article. Lacking in notability as a trainstation. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. state welcome signs

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A dictionary definition of a welcome sign, followed by a gallery. Fails to establish notability. See also: WP:NOTGALLERY. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Many of these photos are also copyvios. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely copyvios, since these are all from Commons category|Road signs by country - Commons would have deleted copyvios. — Maile (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that Pi is an administrator on Commons? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep per WP:NLIST. There are sources for this group of things: "50 state road trip: State welcome signs" and "State welcome signs from around the USA", both USA Today; "Which U.S. State Welcome Sign Is The Best?", BuzzFeed; "50 Welcome Signs for the 50 United States of America", Condé Nast Traveler; "The Welcome Sign from Every State in America", Reader's Digest. Who would've guessed it? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a textbook case of WP:NOTGALLERY. I don't buy the copyvio argument above (except maybe with one or two exceptions), but that's really beside the point. At best, this belongs on Commons. There's no way to verify that these are current, or that a state doesn't use multiple variants, etc. -- just a bunch of (often low quality) snapshots of these things. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - we actually have a bot that periodically goes through all articles and deletes state-owned images. An example is here, which removed an image I'd put on. The exception is if the images were taken individually and uploaded individually. The bot takes time and makes errors. Just an FYI. Bearian (talk) 08:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NLIST. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 16:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NLIST as others have said. Also individual state welcome signs (and tourism slogans in general) generally tend to be notable with sources written about them whenever they're changed. Flyingfishee (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a discussion based on the source eval of the sources found, as well as on the notability on the list as a whole entity per NLIST?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 01:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see lists of signs like this from other countries. Each state has to delineate itself from another, but that is not enough for notability or a stand alone article. Each state sign can be put into the main article of the state if anything is to be salvaged. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NLIST this looks nice. As to the comment above about other countries having lists like this, please refer to Category:Road signs by country. — Maile (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's source coverage specific to US welcome signs, see [9]. MarioGom (talk) 09:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list meets WP:NLIST. That leaves the other question - do we want this information? Does it violate WP:NOT? Personally, I am not especially interested in the United States' state welcome signs but I note that this page averages 45 page views per day (excluding bots and crawlers). That's more than the average WP page. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While interesting, this is a clear violation of WP:NOTGALLERY, as noted by the IP editor above, as the signs are shown with zero context. They would require context to make this a viable list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looking at book and academic sources available online, there seems to be a lot of in-depth literature and analysis of American welcome signs at the local level. At the state level so far, it seems to be mainly newspaper and magazine articles (precisely because it makes for such an attractive gallery-type article). Let's keep digging. (Maybe someone has access to a real physical library with books like this?) Cielquiparle (talk) 09:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGALLERY. This is not an article, it is a photo collage. There is essentially no prose or substance to it. I'm a little concerned at those who are looking at similar photo montages in publications and using them to support significant coverage claims - we would need articles that actually discuss the signs as a whole (and "discussed" is the exact verbiage in NLIST) rather than simply list photos of them with little or no further context. This article also asserts that each state has just one kind of welcome sign, which is not true, and does not check for the timeliness of the supposed "current" signs. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Textbook case of WP:NOTGALLERY here, and the lack of coverage of these signs as a group leads to WP:NLIST not being met here. Let'srun (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+delete Besides WP:NOTGALLERY, there's also the implication that each state has one distinctive sign type. I don't think that's true in Maryland, and I wouldn't be surprised if it weren't true in other states. The style of sing evolves over time, but older signs are not necessarily replaced promptly; I also recall that on some more prominent roads there is more elaborate signage at some crossings. This feels like a commons category, not a list article. Mangoe (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't an article, it's a WP:GALLERY, and as Mangoe pointed out there are states with several welcome sign designs because of age or historic notability, along with several 'local' areas such as the state line between the Kansas Citys where there isn't expected to be a welcome sign at every intersection of State Line Road. Other signs are obnoxious WP:PROMO for their governor's initiatives with taglines (Florida especially, and any state which uses 'open for business') and switched out between governorships. Nathannah • 📮 22:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Saudi Arabia bus crash

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. All keep voters in the previous discussion erroneously cited news coverage as meeting GNG or made baseless arguments about death count. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Saudi Arabia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AfDed before. Not eligible for soft deletion. Relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 01:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Death toll is not notability without sustained and in depth sourcing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Received coverage from the BBC and Al Jazeera: [10] Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete World-wide flash-in-the-pan coverage is not extended coverage, which is what WP:GNG actually calls for. It's depressing that accidents involving Muslim pilgrims in Saudi Arabia are all too common, but each individual such accident is a datum, not an event of lasting notability. Mangoe (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep received widespread coverage outside of region.--User:Namiba 14:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2013 San Martin Jilotepeque bus disaster

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. Unable to find any secondary coverage besides a couple passing mentions in Spanish-language articles about other crashes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Guatemala. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There was international contemporary press coverage at BBC [11], Reuters [12], Sky News [13], RTVE [14], DW [15]. There's been sustained coverage in Guatemalan press: 2016 [16], 2025 [17][18][19]. MarioGom (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources don't confer notability. The sustained coverage in each of those articles is, respectively: two sentences in an article about another crash, six sentences in an article listing crashes, two sentences in an article listing crashes, and three sentences in an article about another crash. If they were all like that second one, then I'd maybe be willing to call it borderline. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 01:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MarioGom. I still interpret this as a persistent historical event based on those short mentions. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A year later, there was a memorial service which was covered with a full article, "Victims of accidents in San Martín Jilotepeque are remembered with mass", by Prensa Libre, Guatemala's newspaper of record. In a poor, mountainous country with a history of mass-tragedy bus accidents, the 2013 San Martin Jilotepeque accident was the worst and the baseline for comparison until a worse one this year. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete as failing the extended coverage test of WP:GNG. Mangoe (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the non-breaking coverage is significant. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Argentina road accident

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Just a random news story that fails WP:EVENT. Unable to find any secondary coverage besides a passing mention in an article about a different crash. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Argentina. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Draftify: Based on searches, while the event had a lot of international coverage meeting the standard of WP:DIVERSE, there was no enduring coverage meeting the standard of WP:PERSISTENCE, nor in-depth coverage of the incident for WP:INDEPTH. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 09:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC) Seems to meet some notability, but more work needs to be done on the article. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's been extensive media coverage of the case through the years in Argentinian press: 2021 [20][21], 2023 [22][23], 2024 [24][25]. This year, one year after the case was closed, there's still coverage of conmemorations [26]. It was also one of two case studies analyzed in a 2017 paper [27]. MarioGom (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Between the case study and the commemorations (still "contemporary" coverage but more distanced from the sequence of events), I might be willing to call this one barely notable. PacificDepths, any thoughts on this as the other delete !vote? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I won't oppose keeping but I lean towards Draft. I see MarioGom improved the article. However, the "why" of how this is notable (in sources above) still is unrecorded. I would also expect to see a corresponding article in Spanish Wikipedia. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's recorded in this AFD, which is all that is required for AFD. The article is well sourced, and It does not meet any draftification criteria. MarioGom (talk) 08:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: MarioGom provided enough sources for the article's subject to meet GNG. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see notability for this event being established. Tragedies like this are reported all the time, but this is not enough to keep as its own article. Does not show it has WP:LASTING effect like changing legislation. A mere announcement is not evidence of change. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 04:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not seeing the lasting impact. Mangoe (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erasmus bus crash

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. Unable to find any secondary coverage, only initial news reports and then the follow up news report when the driver died. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Spain. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's been sustained coverage in reliable sources in late 2016 [28], 2017 [29], 2018 [30], 2019 [31], 2021 [32], 2023 [33][34][35][36]. MarioGom (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2016 is breaking news about closing the case, 2017 and 2018 are breaking news about reopening the case, 2019 is breaking news about reclosing the case, 2021 is breaking news about a memorial (but also has significant coverage of the crash itself), the 2023 sources are about the driver's death and the subsequent end of the case, and 2021 (which you listed as 2023) is breaking news about a memorial. The 2021 source is promising, but I'd hope for at least one source that actually demonstrated that it's notable in its own right as opposed to contemporary coverage over a long period of time. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The one in 2021 provides non-breaking news in-depth coverage, as you already noticed, and that is sustained coverage:
Costantini, Luca (19 March 2021). "El 'caso Freginals', cinco años de parálisis judicial y con los familiares indignados". Vozpópuli (in Spanish).
The forensic analysis of the case has been published in the Spanish legal medicine journal, which is effectively a primary source, but also an indication of it not being a routine event:
Cabús, Rosa Maria (2023). "Intervención forense en el accidente de autobús con 13 víctimas mortales en Freginals, Tarragona, España". Revista Española de Medicina Legal (in Spanish). 49 (2): 71–78. doi:10.1016/j.reml.2023.03.001.
MarioGom (talk) 10:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple WP:RS found.Sigma World (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this single event merits its own page. Does not have WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, it has follow ups on opening/closing of case, but I don't think they establsih notability of the event. Which makes me think it is also not that notable. Based on WP:EVENTCRITERIA, seems to fall under routine news. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A specific analysis of available sources would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep international coverage over several years by reliable sources

Czarking0 (talk) 03:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A statement like "international coverage over several years by reliable sources" doesn't come anywhere close to an analysis of sources. Editors arguing to Keep an article have to put in compelling, specific arguments on exact sources that provide SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there was wide international coverage is uncontested. The fact that there's in-depth coverage beyond routine reporting from, at least, 1 reliable source 5 years later is also uncontested. MarioGom (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Peru bus accident

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. When attempting to find lasting coverage, I'm only able to find info about other bus crashes in Peru because fatal bus crashes are relatively common. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Peru. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Extensive retrospective analysis of the accident, the investigation and the court case: Herrera, Jocelyn; Loayza, Miguel (29 June 2016). "La muerte siempre está en camino". Somos Periodismo (in Spanish). --MarioGom (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's decent coverage, but it's just one source, and not a reliable one; my understanding is that student publications are considered generally unreliable for anything outside of the school itself. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this single event merits its own page. Based on WP:EVENTCRITERIA, seems to fall under routine news. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with mario though event criteria is wonky yeah

JamesEMonroe (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree with the analysis that student publications are inherently less important or not reliable. Bearian (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing this as WP:Lasting. Numerous accidents like this get reported daily, but if not impacting anything like regualtions or law, then it is not notable. Certainly not enough for a stand alone article. WP:NOTNEWS. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:35, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:49, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough to pass WP:NEVENT. One debatable source is bro enough. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vyry bus–train collision

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. The only lasting coverage I can find is where it's described in one paragraph in an article about train collisions (in Ukrainian). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Ukraine. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find it hard to accept that an accident killing 13 people is not notable. It certainly would be without demur in Western Europe or North America, so I think WP:SYSTEMIC applies here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication of passing WP:NEVENT. Systemic bias is an essay and it is not an excuse to ignore our notability guidelines. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not all coverage may be in English. I would suggest searching for articles in Ukrainian. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and I linked a Ukrainian source in my nomination statement as the closest I could find to significant coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see WP:LASTING. Did this make an impact on something notable? Many of these incidents do not need their own page. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The number of deaths is not a criterion for notability. There is no lasting impact or coverage to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Jalaun district bus crash

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. I'm unable to find significant lasting coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Uttar Pradesh. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find it hard to accept that an accident killing 22+ people is not notable. It certainly would be without demur in Western Europe or North America, so I think WP:SYSTEMIC applies here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication of passing WP:NEVENT. Systemic bias is an essay and it is not an excuse to ignore our notability guidelines. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:LASTING. It did not lead to a notable impact in say regualtions or stuff like this. I am also thinking of WP:NOTNEWS. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Necrothesp Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Asafo-Akyem bus crash

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. I'm unable to find significant lasting coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Ghana. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing has changed since the last AfD. I find it hard to accept that an accident killing 19 people is not notable. It certainly would be without demur in Western Europe or North America, so I think WP:SYSTEMIC applies here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication of passing WP:NEVENT. Systemic bias is an essay and it is not an excuse to ignore our notability guidelines. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:LASTING. Stuff like this is reported daily, but not enough to establish notability of the event or for a stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Singapore MRT and LRT lines

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inadequate references given the amount of information present; Most, if not all, of the information present can be found on the main articles for the MRT, the LRT, and the individual lines. George13lol2 (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. George13lol2 (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The main articles are too big. This is a good content fork. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any sources that discuss these lines as a group, beyond an LTA map (ref 3), so WP:NLIST is not met. I am also very concerned by the huge amount of content – most of the sources are news articles, which cannot possibly verify all of these details (though I haven't checked all of them. S5A-0043, you contested the PROD, do you have an opinion here? Toadspike [Talk] 14:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I removed the PROD is because I felt it is possible to challenge the PROD and thus make it controversial. The first two sentences in the original PROD can be countered with WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP, and there may be an argument that redirecting/merging to other articles (such as redirecting to Transport in Singapore) is a viable WP:ATD (though I hadn’t thought over how to best execute this exactly). I don’t really have a strong personal opinion on this matter, but the reasons I could think of not deleting makes me think that an AFD is a better venue to decide the article’s fate rather than a direct PROD. S5A-0043🚎^{(Leave a message here)} 15:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 08:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem here in my opinion is that the article is not what the title claims. This is a sort of construction planner or construction history, for lack of a better term. It's not just a list, and trying to use it as one left me frustrated trying to figure out how many MRT and LRT lines there are in Singapore in total. I'm not really seeing the rationale for this article in its current form, and its sheer size makes it unwieldy, but I can see the rational for an article at this title, just not the one that we have right now. I don't have a clear target for merging or redirecting, so I'm left without a formal opinion on how to close this AfD. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per S5A-0043, fails to satisfy WP:NLIST with too much content not "discussed as a group". This is a well-laid-out, fanciful list article that has far too much information for the sourcing, becoming an indiscriminate collection of information. I will submit that there is original research and the content strays into fringe theories. The "MRT lines" section has "Service commencement" dates of 36 and 37 years ago. It includes unsourced dates and "ages", which will require meticulous yearly editing to remain up-to-date. Many entries have the length listed as "TBD," even on lines in service for 30 or more years. While I champion ATD, it would be a monumental task to merge any salvageable content, and a redirect would not seem possible with the title-to-content disconnect. Because the parent articles are too big, this does not give a green light to keep an article with unsolvable issues. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Start date and age automatically updates ages...this doesn't require "meticulous yearly editing".... I'm quite baffled what would be a "fringe theory" here or what is original research. The sourcing here could be improved and there may be cleanup required, but I don't see any basis for these claims. These are hardly substantial issues, much less unsolvable ones. Reywas92^Talk 05:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The delete vote above is unpersuasive. These are the mass transit rail lines in Singapore owned by the Land Transport Authority, so I don't see how it would be an indiscriminate collection of information – it's a very well defined list of the lines organized by their construction segments – or how it's possible to claim that the country's rail lines are not discussed as a group. This is very appropriate information, not "far too much information", and a need for more sourcing does not mean it's original research or should be deleted in this instance. It's an excellent subarticle of Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)#Network and infrastructure and Light Rail Transit (Singapore)#Network that provides relevant details in an organized table. Even if the indivual lines' articles also include segment history, this is a good way to present it all together, regardless of any need for cleanup. Reywas92^Talk 05:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per above. The MRT and LRT articles are also very lengthy, and this information is better off on a separate page. Issues with sourcing, OR, and excessive detail can (and should) be fixed through normal editing. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 12:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stations

Dačice railway station

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sign of notability. All three used sources are databases. I did not find any good sources and cswiki does not contain any either. FromCzech (talk) 05:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 05:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NTRAINSTATION, train stations are not presumed notable. No indication that the topic meets WP:GNG. C 679 08:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nur Shah railway station

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable source covers the station, does not meet WP:GNG Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Asia, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lodhran–Raiwind Branch Line. To give context, I came across this article yesterday, felt that something was fishy, and did a dive into the sources only to find that almost every single one was being severely misrepresented (diff). This article does not have sufficient sourcing to meet GNG. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lodhran–Raiwind Branch Line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PunjabiEditor69 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were the same person who added this "fan club" source, weren't you? Why are you adding such sources? - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SheriffIsInTown - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is beyond the scope of this discussion. That source was added in an effort to provide some sourcing to a completely unsourced article so it could be removed from the unsourced list. Its presence does not confer notability. These articles just add to the management overhead for editors. Thank you for the reminder — I will be nominating other such articles for deletion as well. I hope I can count on your support, since you were the one who raised this point. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should redirect pages of small stations that have no reliable sources. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 08:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jihlava-Staré Hory railway station

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sign of notability, a railway station is not notable just for being a railway station. The first source is a passing mention, the second does not mention the station at all, the third is a database. Draftification is also an alternative for this recently created page, but I doubt there is room for improvement – I didn't find any sources other than databases and cswiki doesn't contain any either. FromCzech (talk) 05:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 05:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NTRAINSTATION, train stations are not presumed notable. No indication that the topic meets WP:GNG. C 679 08:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nasimi (Baku Metro)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems unlikely that sources exist which show that every stop on this metro line are notable per WP:STATION. Other language WP pages are poorly referenced, at best they show the station exists in public timetables etc. WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that this metro stop is notable as it is an example of post-Soviet architecture in Azerbaijan. Most metro stations in the former Soviet Union have unique architectural features, see stations of the Saint Petersburg Metro. You would not delete a station article for the New York City Subway or the Moscow Metro so why delete this one? Zbase4 (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NTRAINSTATION says "train stations have no inherent notability and are not presumed notable for simply being train stations." I believe this applies to metro stations as well. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep I found one source:

AZERTAC (2024-06-04). Laməkan şairin metrodakı məkanı. Retrieved 2025-05-17 – via YouTube.

In addition, the Azerbaijani Wiki has two additional sources but they are both dead links & I cannot revive on Archive.org. From the titles they suggest SIGCOV & searching their former domains they seemed to be news sources so I will WP:AGF of the original Wiki authors and assume they are SIGCOV RS. Jumpytoo Talk 01:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Baku Metro. There is nothing for a stand alone article. Lacking in notability as a trainstation. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation Proposed deletions

Vine Street Expressway Bridge (via WP:PROD on 25 May 2025)
NSB Class XXII (via WP:PROD on 12 May 2025)

Transportation-related Images and media for Deletion

None at present

Transportation-related Miscellany for deletion

None at present

Transportation-related Templates for Deletion

None at present

Transportation-related Categories for Discussion

None at present

Transportation-related Deletion Review

None at present

Transportation-related Redirects for Discussion

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