Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 9: Line 9:
==Transportation==
==Transportation==
<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mark_Topal_Gökceli}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Light_train}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Light_train}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2025_Brooklyn_Park_TBM-700_crash}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2025_Brooklyn_Park_TBM-700_crash}}

Revision as of 09:13, 1 April 2025

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

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 14:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Topal Gökceli

Mark Topal Gökceli (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)

Mark Topal Gökceli should be considered for deletion due to insufficient independent sources that establish his notability and impact in the field. Additionally, the article mostly focuses on recent positions and roles without providing any significant achievements or widespread recognition, making it lack depth and relevance. 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 07:51, 1 April 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.
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. asilvering (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Light train

Light train (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)

Appears to be an original WP:NEOlogism. None of the cited sources use the term "light train" as defined in the article, and there do not appear to be other sources that describe the term as such. It appears to combine two separate concepts: lightweight trains from the mid-20th century, and a unrelated variety of trains in operation in Europe which are not permitted for regular operation in the United States. Sub31k (talk) 15:20, 31 March 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.

2025 Brooklyn Park TBM-700 crash

2025 Brooklyn Park TBM-700 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)

The article was WP:TOOSOON and the creator has a history of making articles too soon. I only made it cause there was a proposed deletion warning and as of now though, there is more information and no survivors, which might make it be able to stay. If the pilot is the only occupant though, we should delete the article. -Bloxzge 025 ツCanada — Preceding undated comment added 04:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is just like the Learjet fiasco that happened in Philadelphia, A plane crashed into a highly populated area mind you, just like the learjet in Philly. The page still needs to be updated with info, and needs to be currently updated, as an investigation into this crash is currently going on. I also agree with the people claiming that this article is "too soon" but just like the learjet crash, an investigation is going on. Shaneapickle (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just like the Philadelphia crash though as the plane was a medical jet with six occupants including a pediatric kid. It also crashed in a populated area but with a fatality and dozens of injuries. Also, with every plane crash there's an investigation, so that's not a reason to keep it. Plane crashes with a single fatality happen everyday, populated area or not, without articles. This one is no exception. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•Note above arguement by user Shaniapickle seems to be a case of WP:OSE, invalidating their vote. Lolzer3k 14:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree since there were no survivors out of the plane that has a capacity of about 7. I only started this when the article was WP:TOOSOON and when a proposed deletion nomination was posted.
Waleed (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.Delete this should be deleted because the news about it is dwindling. Lucthedog2 (talk) 15:20, 9 April 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 14:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also Inc.

Also Inc. (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)

Brand-new startup, spun off from Rivian Automotive just two days ago. All coverage is just about Rivian announcing the spinoff. No sign it meets WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Better off as a section in Rivian Automotive for now. Junbeesh (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree with Junbeesh. Thus far the information available that I can find is simply an announcement of a spin off. For now, sources read like coverage of an event with little detailed information about Also, Inc which makes sense given there is little info beyond its focus on electric "micromobility". A (sub)section under Rivian would be enough for now.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:36, 29 March 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.
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 23:29, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Bus

Liberty Bus (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 WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:NCORP. ProtobowlAddict talk! 22:58, 29 March 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.
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 23:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RodBez

RodBez (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 as the sources only provide trivial coverage, primarily comprising recycled press releases and fundraising notices. Yuvaank (talk) 20:49, 29 March 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.
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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ballintra railway station

Ballintra 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)

Irish railway station that fails WP:GNG. No reliable and in-depth sources found. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:42, 24 March 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.
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. If anyone wants the content moved to user or draft space, pending finding sources, please let me know. (Alternatively, we could get EEng to retarget the term as being somebody who clings around the discussions at Requests for adminship like a limpet or some other mollusc.) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Mollusc

RFA Mollusc (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 salvage vessel. I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (basically all I get is historicalrfa.uk which even if it met all the criteria for SIGCOV, which I am uncertain on, is only one source). I tagged this for notability a week ago, but the author simply reverted the tag without comment and declined to improve the article any further, leaving me with no choice but AfD. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting that an attempt to draftify on March 1 was promptly reverted without comment by the article's author. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - article creator is a new editor. As well as the Historical RFA website used as a reference (from which the article can be expanded greatly), there is also Clydesite. The Times draws a blank this time. Mjroots (talk) 12:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Does Historical RFA meet our requirements for a reliable source? I've looked it over and can't find any sort of "about us" beyond two people listed as consultants. A trip to rfaa.uk is more promising, but I'm still not getting a clear sense of who their authors are and if the website counts as a reliable source. Forgive me, I am not shipsandotherthings so I'm not as familiar with sourcing in this area.
    If this were a warship, I'd probably have left it in the NPP queue, but a salvage vessel doesn't seem to have automatic notability. Perhaps there's a list article it could be merged to somewhere? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trainsandotherthings: - Given the detail of entries consistently across the site, I'd say yes. However, I'm not a MILHIST expert, it just happens that some ships have MILHIST connections. I'll ask over there, see what the experts say. Mjroots (talk) 06:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Having had a look around the usual sources I agree that it is going to be difficult to prove notability for Mollusc. The Historical RFA page is more a list of seaman deaths plus two lines on the salvaging of some items from Falmouth than in depth coverage. Clydeships prove the ship existed but is not much more than a database entry. I think any evidence of notability will come from her later service as Yantlet, especially with mention of this 1667 Dutch warship and the possibility of work during the Second World War. I'm no expert on civil ship service so with have to leave it to others to prove or disprove. Looking at some definitely not reliable sources, it appears Mollusc may have originally been the name ship of the Trinculo-class mooring vessels. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as no one but the nominator has actually cast a "vote" here yet. I'd also like to get this discussion a bit more time in case an editor knowledgeable about ships and shipping can propose an ATD. Too bad there isn't a deletion sort for "ships".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As I've shown above, sufficient sources exist to enable an article of at least start level to be written. As we all know, that an article needs improvement is never a reason to delete it. Mjroots (talk) 11:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet again, I'm attacked for daring to participate in NPP and bringing an article I could not find sufficient sources on to AfD. I'm extremely tired of this consistently poor treatment. I've improved many a poor quality article, and even saved several from deletion; I do not need a lecture on the subject, from you or from anyone else. You've identified exactly 1 additional source, which is simply a database with statistics and almost no prose at all, and then gone on a high horse about how it's so evil that anyone dare nominate an article for deletion. Not everyone is an expert in ships, and not everyone has the exact same interpretation of GNG. I did a standard BEFORE search before creating this nomination, as I always do. I don't understand why you have suddenly decided to implicitly accuse me of misconduct when we were having a perfectly civil discussion regarding the article previously. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I repeated my search for sources and still haven't found significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Even assuming historicalrfa checks all the boxes (and its records are not, as it warns, "extremely sketchy"), a second source has yet to be found. I say that because I do not think that clydeships has significant coverage. I don't know if it's reliable, but it does seem indiscriminate. To quote from the website itself: "This web site aims to present the vital information and the careers of all vessels built by the shipyards of Scotland" (emphasis mine). Not all of those tens of thousands of ships are notable enough for their own article, and in my subjective and non-expert opinion, there isn't enough in the RFA Mollusc's remarks section to prove notability. I would be happy to support an ATD if anyone can find one. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 03:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I feel this may be useful in another page, but not sure where. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:06, 8 April 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.
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 merge‎ into either a new list article, or a sub-section of All American Racers. In any case, most editors expressed the view that redirecting and merging was an alternative to outright deletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle 987

Eagle 987 (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 racecar that ran in one race series. No secondary sourcing in the article, nor could I find any online from a basic search. Initially tagged this for single source and not meeting GNG, and an editor responded by adding two database entries that don't say a word about the car. The article calls it "entirely unsuccessful" though the sole source that says anything about the car (from its manufacturer, so both primary and non-independent) doesn't even support that. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things, if you look at the sources i added, they are for the results, and 12th wasn't in the points for the series, so as I stated, it was unsuccessful, regardless of what Eagle had to say about the matter. Vantage-TWR (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I hope the participants arguing for Deletion can be more clear in what they are arguing for because you are also stating that you are for a Redirection and/or Merge. There can only be one outcome so please don't give a closer different options.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i personally think that a list should be made of the Eagle indy/champ car chassis, then this and the other Eagle cars will be redirected to said list Vantage-TWR (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to this suggestion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
then just make some bare bones list, and the current pages can be dumped onto the new page Vantage-TWR (talk) 00:13, 27 March 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.

CJ Darcl Logistics

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

lacks sufficient coverage from independent, reliable sources, failing to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If the article primarily relies on self-published sources or promotional content, it would violate Wikipedia’s neutrality and verifiability standards. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Pandora! I have made changes in the article. Adityasharma0701 (talk) 10:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep – I am not an expert in analyzing Indian sources, but the company seems to have the minimum notability for an article ([1], [2], [3]). If there is promotional content, it should be removed without prejudice to the existence of the article as a whole (WP:DINC). Svartner (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 10:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It looks like the improvements to this article involved the removal of inappropriate content, not the addition of new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]



Stations

Transportation Proposed deletions

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=1283406198"