Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dilettante (talk | contribs) at 17:29, 5 July 2024 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Seoul car crash.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Transportation. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Transportation|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Transportation. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


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

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


Transportation

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 Procedural keep since I didn't see the PROD. Withdrawing nom. (non-admin closure)‎ Sincerely, Dilettante 17:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Seoul car crash

2024 Seoul car 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)

Brought to my attention by ITNC. Fails WP:SUSTAINED and WP:EVENTCRIT#4. It can be undeleted later if there is any actual impact. Also against the spirit of WP:NOTNEWS. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Southern Transcon without prejudice against changing to a better target, if found. Owen× ☎ 12:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crookton, Arizona

AfDs for this article:
Crookton, Arizona (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)

Can't keep using WP:NPLACE as a rational and seems to fail WP:SIGCOV. It's just a point on a railway line and I've found no indication that that particular point is of any notability. TarnishedPathtalk 09:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It is not a legally recognized place, and my search on DDG, Google Books and Scholar turned unfruitful. WP:NPLACE says to defer to GNG in this case. It is misleadingly categorized as a populated place in the navbox. Just look at the satellite map to see why that is wrong.
Ca talk to me! 10:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before it was "officially" determined around 2020 that GNIS was not a reliable source, and not a gazetteer after all, because someone (I appreciated the background here) made 10s of thousands of crappy data-dump articles, people like me used it in good faith to label locations as populated places. It's interesting to me that these location AfDs seem to assume that the people who have started these articles were trying to intentionally mislead or even blatantly lie about someplace being a populated place, when in fact we were using what was at one time considered a reliable source. I just want to put it out there for the record. Oh, and I've asked this several times, but what guideline is appropriate to cite for "I looked at the satellite map and determined X."? I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'd actually love to find the correct policy or guideline about this as this is also something that comes up a lot in these AfDs. If it's just common sense, that's fine but please say so. It's hard to prove a negative, I get it. In my region, there are reference books where the author writes about interesting places, and he would say that a place was not much of a going concern anymore. (e.g. "It used to have a school, a church, and a store, but there nothing left at the site today.") It's too bad there aren't more such 3rd-party sources around. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to George Crook, for whom it is named. — Maile (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? That article has no mention of the place, nor should it, as it's a completely non-notable unpopulated railroad waypoint with no connection to its namesake. They might as well have named it King Henry VIII. In the unlikely event anyone wanted information about Crookton, they would probably search for the railroad division, not the historical figure. Delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that George Crook is the wrong target for a redirect, but a touch more civility about the matter might be in order. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also linked Crookton Cutoff in Hassayampa Flyer. Incidentally, the cutoff article was a not-ready-for-primetime deleted draftified article. If you don't have access to deleted drafts, it's three unsourced sentences that could easily be researched and added to another rail article, likely doesn't need a standalone. Valfontis (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criollo Project

Criollo Project (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)

Car or car project that doesn't pass the WP:GNG. The title is so bad that a redirect is not recommended. The article is also very new. gidonb (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Transportation, and Poland. gidonb (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There is only passing mention in a few trade internet sites and nothing from any major, reputable source to indicate notability. I added multiple tags in May during new page review to encourage the editors to improve it. They removed much of the peacock and advertising (it was OK to remove my old tags recently) but have not done anything on notability plus all the images have been removed due to copyright violations. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historical sizes of railroads

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

This is a strange remnant of an older Wikipedia that has somehow escaped notice since 2005. It's a list of those railroad companies in North America which in 1948 had 1000 or more steam locomotives. It might be sourced. It's definitely not encyclopedic, and I don't see how it could be. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steam locomotive production, a similar article of the same vintage from the same author. Mackensen (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Whatever the original intent, this seems a very short and incomplete list. There are numerous railroads/rail lines in the United States. Looks like the editor just went by info in the two books listed, but there are no details of which pages, etc. — Maile (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This list of steam locomotives seems like a niche curiosity, and it's not really the kind of in-depth information most readers would expect from an encyclopedia. Waqar💬 17:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is clearly not an encyclopedic subject, much the same as the former steam locomotive production article Mackensen mentions (I happened to be the nominator for that AfD). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NOTDB. Did consider a redirect yet the name is too confusing. gidonb (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 no consensus‎ for deletion. Editors disagree whether coverage is routine or lasting, and whether the sources contain sigcov or not, in roughly equal numbers for each side. No strong indication that a more targetted merge discussion to Airbus A340 will be supported by the keep !voters, but that could be a next step here. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Atlantic Flight 024

Virgin Atlantic Flight 024 (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)

Minor aviation incident, no serious injuries or fatalities, not a hull loss, no impact on aviation regulations or the air transportation system generally; in summary, no WP:LASTING impact. The incident can be adequately discussed in the Heathrow Airport and Airbus A340 articles (perhaps tellingly, there is no mention of the incident in either article as I write this). Carguychris (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:The Banner, can you expand a bit beyond direct impacts, here injuries sustained plus damage both to the vessel and to Heathrow Airport? gidonb (talk) 01:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:LaundryPizza03, of course! Thanks for asking! It's all through Google Books. gidonb (talk) 09:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, wow! Great find! That's already 4 cases of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, this time from 2024! How does such persistent coverage correspond with your conclusion? gidonb (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SimpleFlying is NOT a reliable source - see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#SimpleFlying.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By WP:NEXIST, there is absolutely no lack of sources. Exactly why nom did not raise that. Rather, the question is whether the importance of this event was temporary or is WP:LASTING. Hence, also this fourth and very detailed source carries weight, in addition to the other three, as it proves that the interest in this event continues to date. For that purpose (only) the quality of the publication is of little or no relevance. gidonb (talk) 10:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SimpleFlying does not count towards notability because it isn't reliable - the guideline that you quote does not say that non-reliable sources count for notability - you need to show significant coverage in reliable sources - for the three book sources, there needs to be significant coverage (ie. not just passing mention) - do they show that?Nigel Ish (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage in Simon does not seem to be very extensive - a mention that the incident occured and discussion about how British tabloid newspapers said nice things about the pilot (in a discussion about how flight crew behaviour in accidents and near-misses. Similarly, Branson's book merely talks about how Branson entertained the flight crew on his private island after the incident - again - not really significant coverag. I can't see the Balmforth source.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While not all these statements hold water, I will refer you to my previous answer that had already covered the gist of these arguments. gidonb (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'll AGF on the sources given by gidonb. S5A-0043Talk 09:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's in Google Books, and I recall having seen the RD version excerpted somewhere (here?) in a religious magazine. It may be above but I'm not seeing it. Lamona (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)][reply]
Ah, I usually use DuckDuckGo and not Google so that's where it came up: RD. It's from 2004. Lamona (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to comment, The Standard's article only briefly mentions Flight 24. Most of the article talks about the emergency landing of a Virgin Atlantic Boeing 747. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Sources have been found above that seem to indicate both notability and lasting impact. Would also support closing as it seems unlikely that this discussion will yield a consensus towards deletion. Acebulf (talk | contribs) 04:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:notnews. ‹hamster717🐉› (discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 04:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.



Stations

STP Kabaty

STP Kabaty (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)

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. The SNG for p[laces explicitly says that they are not presumed notable and must meet GNG. Has not even one reference anywhere near GNG. North8000 (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : The polish wiki has significantly more info.... much of it unsourced. https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacja_Techniczno-Postojowa_Kabaty
I assume there might be information in polish to help prove notability, but as I can't speak polish, and polish wiki has no useful citations to help, I'd vote delete unless folks can find them. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's all about the sources and those arguing to Keep this article have to demonstrate that RS exist to support claims in this article. A source review would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation Proposed deletions

None at present

None at present

None at present

None at present

None at present

None at present

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Transportation&oldid=1232801850"