Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation

Points of interest related to Transportation on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Deletions

Points of interest related to Automobiles on Wikipedia: Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Assessment

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

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.

Purge page cache

watch

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

Annual passenger earnings details of railway stations in Kerala (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 just a copy of published railway statistics (as shown in the references). There is no explanation or context provided, just a bunch of huge tables. WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTSTATS should apply.

I think this information would be better in individual stations' articles. NS-Merni (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Transportation, and Kerala. NS-Merni (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTIINFO. Totally unnecessary and unencyclopedic. Ajf773 (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Large tables of tabular data are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vande Bharat (Sleeper) Express (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)

as per the pervious discussion above. Not enough sources to state this is a different service from Vande Bharat Express SKAG123 (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SKAG123 (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Vande Bharat Express as per nom.

  SKAG123 (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Vande Bharat Express: There is no indication that this would be a separate service. If, in the future, it is announced that this is a separate service, we can create an article for that service. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 08:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican auto insurance (tourist) (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)

While this page maybe helpful, I think it fails WP:NOTGUIDE. Wikipedia isnt here for helping tourists. That's what Google is for. Plus, we don't have other articles talking about this specific type of insurance in other countries. Some of the information over here maybe suitable to add to the page vehicle insurance in the United States JuniperChill (talk) 13:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Transportation, and Mexico. JuniperChill (talk) 13:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People's Republic of China's civilian motor vehicle license plates (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)

Odd fork of Vehicle registration plates of China. Another editor redirected it there, but was reverted with the (dubious, in my opinion) reason that "zh wiki has two separate articles". Most of the content here duplicates Vehicle registration plates of China and I can find no compelling reason to keep a fork. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some contents are duplicated with Vehicle registration plates of China. Shwangtianyuan Defeat the virus together 14:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to retain the functionality of the language switcher from zh.wp. The xtools reports for the zh articles are pretty interesting: the vehicle registration plates article is slightly older, but the civilian vehicle registration plates article has fifteen times as many inlinks and sees three times as much traffic. Both have similar numbers of edits and distinct editors. This isn't an argument for or against any course of action here, but the fork is somewhat mystifying. Folly Mox (talk) 11:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kalawewa 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)

Non-notable station, also strongly sets off my "this is AI" senses. The glossy promotional tone screams LLM. The sole source in the article verifies nothing beyond the fact that it exists. I'd redirect this to Northern Line myself, but I'm sure that would be contested with an edit summary saying "take it to AfD", so here we are. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and Sri Lanka. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, its actually on the Batticaloa line not the Northern line. Dan arndt (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's... rather concerning. Thanks for correcting it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge to Batticaloa line if sources can't be found (has anyone attempted to look for sources in the local language?). Whether the article was or wasn't written by AI and/or whether it does or does not have a glossy promotional tone (I don't see it myself) are irrelevant to AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Dan arndt was kind enough to resolve the issues with tone. Compare what it looked like when I tagged it for tone versus after Dan arndt rewrote it: [1]. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Batticaloa line would be the best move, since sources that could establish why this station is notable are thin on the ground. TH1980 (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Jet Rescue Air Ambulance Learjet 35 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT: not notable under WP:EVENTCRIT #4, no WP:LASTING effects, no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Mexico. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Transportation. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is multiple other accidents involving no continued coverage, but I don't care if it gets deleted. I just think that why would the draft be accepted just to get deleted. I tried to put in effort, but whatever I guess. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 02:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Understandable. I do not mean anything by this, but if you are going to make an article attempt to pick more notable and well sourced topics. The reason it is being deleted is not out of spite or hate, it is because it's a non notable crash that underwent no sustained coverage and had no lasting effects. Yet again, if this is deleted, i am sorry. @Bloxzge 025 Lolzer3k 17:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Cuernavaca Airport. Per longstanding WP:AV consensus, this is the appropriate place for air crashes that took place at or near an airport and have insufficient standalone notability. Carguychris (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•Delete I have been eyeing this article for a while. Standard low fatality run of the mill crash with no sustained coverage nor notable or lasting effects. @Rosbif73 Lolzer3k 14:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen others with no notable or lasting effects Bloxzge 025 (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping articles – indeed, the lack of notability and lasting effects is probably a good reason to put those other articles up for deletion too. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Cuernavaca Airport – Per WP:EVENTCRIT: No sustained continued coverage post-2023 with WP:EVENTCRIT#4 stating that routine kinds of news events accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. It might be a bit too early to judge whether this accident has lasting effects or not, with the final report not having been released yet, but if in the end something changes, such as the event having lasting effects, I think a recreation of the article would be a possibility. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Cuernavaca Airport as the best alternative to deletion. This is just a WP:News article and lacks meaningful coverage outside of the news. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TCDD DH44100 (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)

Tagged uncited for almost a decade and the Turkish article is also uncited. Despite the comment on the talk page I don’t see why this should be kept as I searched and it does not seem to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The German book is an excellent source on the MaK 600 D [de], probably the Mak 650 too. That may also be enough to support this article as well. But the point is that I don't have this book, I haven't read it, and at £40 for a German language book (my German is sketchy at best) then I'm unlikely to buy one. I'm sure it belongs here as a source, but I can't claim that it's sourcing the article content as things stand. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• keep As the Turkish article isn't unsourced (not 'uncited') and WP:NORUSH still applies, I find the deletion nomination unconvincing. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Andy Dingley Thanks for adding Roland (2011) to the English article. I see you left the uncited tag in place. Is that because you don’t consider either Roland or trainsofturkey to be reliable sources? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge. I'm not certain if the class of locomotives is individually notable (equivalent UK classes normally are, so it's certainly plausible), but it is most likely that sources will be in Turkish, a language I don't speak. If it isn't individually notable then merging to a broader article (possibly something about Turkish shunting locos, but probably not the DB Class V 65 article suggested on the talk page, unless that article's scope is broadened) is the way forwards. I'm not seeing any reason for deletion, as it's an encyclopaedic component of a broader topic that is definitely notable. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If there is a Turkish source then editors on trwiki have not yet found it as the only external link they have added is in English - that is http://www.trainsofturkey.com/pmwiki.php/Traction/DH44100 Chidgk1 (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because a source isn't included in a given language edition's article is not a reliable indicator of whether the source does or does not exist. All Wikipedias are works in progress, and smaller language editions almost always more so than en.wp. We have no indication that any Turkish speaker has even looked for sources - the tr.wiki article hadn't been edited since 2020 until you tagged it as unsourced yesterday, it's never been nominated for deletion nor (as far as I can tell) has it ever been discussed at a noticeboard or similar. Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If this was to be merged, a better target than DB Class V 65 would be MaK 600 D [de] or MaK rod-coupled locomotives [de]. AFAIK, these Turkish examples were not versions of the German railway service V 65, but were both examples of a widespread commercial design, the MaK 600 / MaK 650. While sourcing, especially in English, is going to be a problem the broader scope article might be a better and more achievable goal. Creating a valid stub for MaK rod-coupled locomotives [de] wouldn't be too hard. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suez bus 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)

Unable to find sustained coverage in secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Just a WP:News article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Well, there was another Suez bus crash a few days ago, and one in 2021... I don't see the subject of this article being that notable. There isn't anything about it other than what's given in the article, from a decade ago. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Egypt. Skynxnex (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Just imagine if an accident that killed 25 people that happened in the UK or USA was nominated for deletion! Clearly WP:SYSTEMIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Gujarat bus 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)

Unable to find sustained coverage in secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Just a WP:News article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and India. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:ROUTINE news event that is not notable with no enduring significance. RangersRus (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: An event that is not notable. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. --Ratekreel (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Just imagine if an accident that killed 47+ people that happened in the UK or USA was nominated for deletion! Clearly WP:SYSTEMIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023 Kallar Kahar bus accident (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)

Unable to find sustained coverage in secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Just a WP:News article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Pakistan. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While this was a sad incident, but road accidents like this are quite common in Pakistan and this one is no exception. It received some press coverage, but it seems to have faded quickly, lacking sustained coverage or lasting impact, thus fails NEVENT. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Agreed as per nom. Wikibear47 (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge in List of traffic collisions (2000–present). Is there any list about traffic collisions in Pakistan?--Gul Butt (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Manchester bus route X22 (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 bus route with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The two sources currently in the article are a listing of 15 bus routes with no details, and the timetable from the operator. A BEFORE search finds no additional coverage. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the same reasons as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Manchester bus route 263, equally non notable bus route. Ajf773 (talk) 08:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD"d so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Espinar bus 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)

Lacks sustained coverage in secondary sources and had no lasting effects. This is a news article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Peru. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Just imagine if an accident that killed 41 people that happened in the UK or USA was nominated for deletion! Clearly WP:SYSTEMIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete – There appears to be some continued coverage that may demonstrate the event's notability,^[1][2][3][4] however, the fact that some do not provide significant coverage of the event plus the lack of demonstrable lasting effects all make me lean towards a weak delete. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tam Duong bus 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)

Lacks sustained coverage in secondary sources and had no lasting effects. This is a news article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Vietnam. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Just imagine if an accident that killed 19 people that happened in the UK or USA was nominated for deletion! Clearly WP:SYSTEMIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Egyptian bus accident (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 sustained coverage and had no lasting effects. Just a WP:News article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Egypt. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Good grief. Fails everything from WP:GNG to WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS and all points inbetween. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Just imagine if an accident that killed 55 people that happened in the UK or USA was nominated for deletion! Clearly WP:SYSTEMIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:NOTNEWS: Whilst tragic, with the casualty count being high, significant or in-depth sustained continued coverage of the event seems to be lacking along with demonstrable lasting effects. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event also lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a horrific thing to contemplate that a road accident killing 55 anywhere in the world wouldn't be notable. We've got little to go on, there are news reports but little ongoing coverage. That said, I don't read Arabic, it seems likely that there would be sustained non-English coverage. I'm going to say unsure in that I would hope that there was more than I'm seeing. JMWt (talk) 09:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete – (Revised vote) – Borderline in my opinion. I've found some "detailed" coverage dating back to 2008 plus one in 2013, however, the lack of actual sustained continued coverage post-2009, and the lack of demonstrable lasting effects are enough for me to vote delete, albeit a weak one. Sources found:^[1][2][3][4] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lavangsdalen bus accident (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 sustained coverage and had no lasting effects. Just a WP:News article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Norway. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• There was coverage a year after, and then some mentions here and there in years to come. Probably not very sustained. I'm interested in repurposing the article to an article about the location, Lavangsdalen. Geschichte (talk) 06:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Lavangsdalen. This is a valley known for one thing first and foremost: road accidents. I have created the article, chronicling the modern accidents and outlining the hundreds of millions that have subsequently been spent on hightened safety. The bus accident where 5 died was the largest one, but still part of a broader pattern of accidents. Geschichte (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bergen Commuter Rail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There exists no such entity as "Bergen Commuter Rail". Neither reference in the article mentions this fictitious entity, and a quick web search only returns Wikipedia articles, mirrors, and blogs that are most likely WP:CITOGENESIS. No Norwegian public body mentions this term on their website. The railway line between Bergen and Voss is documented at Voss Line. The service between Bergen and Arna is known as the L 4 line, and between Bergen, Voss, and Myrdal, as the R 40. Official route map. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Norway. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: At first I thought this could be the result of a poor translation, but it does seem to be entirely fabricated. The sources provided do not support the claims either (the annual ridership claim never appears in the provided source, for example). ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 00:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Does this fall into WP:G3 territory? Esolo5002 (talk) 03:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please avoid verging into a Wikipedia:Personal attack on the creator. It is obvious that the article was created in good faith. Geschichte (talk) 08:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear, this article was created in 2008 by a very productive user. It clearly represents a good-faith effort to write about the local and regional train routes ending at Bergen, but grouping them together like this isn't actually supported by anything. In fact, the supposed Norwegian name, Vossebanen, is actually just the name of the Voss Line. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 08:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Whether or not this article was created in good faith is irrelevant. If it's fabricated, it should be speedy deleted as a hoax. I didn't say anything about the original creator (in fact I asked a question) so I'm not sure how this could be percieved as an attack. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Esolo's comment is nowhere near a personal attack. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 19:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Vossebanen They do call the service "Vossebanen" per the image in this news article, but it's clear the supposed English name is a creation of the creator. But that is a surmountable problem via page move. Once links to the Bergen Commuter Rail are fixed to the correct name I'm not opposed to deleting the redirect after. Jumpytoo Talk 03:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the trains that (mostly) run on the Voss Line have the Norwegian name of the line painted on them. They are also used between Bergen and Arna, and on low-demand departures between Bergen and Oslo. This does not mean that these routes together form some sort of commuter rail system, as the article implies. There also really isn't anything in this article worth saving at the moment:

• The lead, as discussed, conflates the R 40 (Bergen–Voss–Myrdal) and L 4 (Bergen–Arna) routes. This is just wrong and arguably enough of a reason to delete the article.
• § Service is a combination of WP:NOT content (the exact schedules are variable and do not belong in an encyclopedia) and content that belongs in other articles. The information about the routes belongs at Rail transport in Norway § Passenger services, and possibly Bergen Line. The paragraph about financing belongs at Vy or Rail transport in Norway as, again, this is not a separate commuter rail system, but simply a conflation of two normal passenger services. The information about fare integration is first of all wrong, and also of questionable encyclopedic relevance; fare integration is the result of ad hoc agreements between the different providers and not managed by any common organization, and is thus subject to arbitrary changes.
• § Station list and § Future expansion are already at Bergen Line, as they should.

-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are surmountable problems that don't require deletion and can be fixed from just editing (ex. fixing the lead, change Service to be less of a timetable). But I'm also fine with moving then immediately redirecting to Bergen Line as an intern measure. I always prefer to retain the history if possible, as it makes a possible future article easier to create & allows for merging of any mergeable content Jumpytoo Talk 15:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if this page title should be a Redirect whether or not it moved to a current redirect Vossebanen
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mavişehir 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)

Tagged as uncited almost a year ago. I could not find enough good sources to show it to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While I agree the article needs to be re-written and sourced, deleting this one in particular has no logic. I will go through these railway station articles in the coming days and add/expand to them with the new information and updates available. These articles were written years ago, and should be updated indeed. This comment goes for ALL IZBAN stations that are currently outdated. I will get to them all by the end of the month. (Central Data Bank (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep pending Central Data Bank's improvements. If the article can't be expanded after a reasonable amount of time (at least a couple of months) then merging and/or redirection to an appropriate broader article will be appropriate but there is no case for outright deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vivada Inland Waterways (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)

Should be deleted because it lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, which raises questions about its notability. Furthermore, the content appears promotional in nature, primarily serving as a company advertisement rather than providing an informative overview of inland waterways. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 09:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 09:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Kemerovo Let L-410UVP-E crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary in nature since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Russia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•Delete per nom, non notable run of the mill incident. tragedy doesnt neccestate an article. Lolzer3k 14:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I took a quick look for a possible merge or redirect target. Is there any I might have missed? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without one, I'll !vote to delete. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VASP Flight 780 (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)

While tragic, there is no indication that this airplane crash meets WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT; if there was significant, long-lasting coverage, I can't find any sources to prove it. And I have no reason to believe there is likely to be long-lasting coverage: three deaths, crashed into the forest, and the crash was caused by pilot error.

Current three sources/links, used here and on the deWiki article, are unusable for notability/unusable.[2] is a user-generated wiki, [3] is a government report on the crash (they're required to make these for every single incident), [4] is a YouTube video of a cockpit recording. My WP:BEFORE revealed two YouTube videos:[5] [6], both unusable.

I have no prejudice against selectively merging/redirecting, should a suitable target be found. Given the limited ramifications of the initial crash, even if the topic can be shown notable a stand-alone page would likely not be warranted GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Brazil. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: it received reasonable coverage in Portuguese-language sources, as per pt:Voo VASP Cargo 780#Referências (note: there was no interlanguage link before). fgnievinski (talk) 03:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link! I'll have a look through them. The ptWiki does appear to be of better quality than the enWiki and deWiki articles.

• [7] is user generated
• [8] does not mention the plane crash or the plane itself
• [9] is the same crash report (and cited four times)
• [10] is the Aviationbase wiki again

Then there's four 1992 news reports, all dated to within a day of the accident. The ptWiki links are broken, but the headlines appear to be the fairly routine "a plane crash happened, people died" type story that, while useful, was something I knew was likely to exist and doesn't change my arguments about WP:NEVENT, lasting coverage, WP:GNG, and WP:PAGEDECIDE.

The information about a social media user visiting the plane crash is new to me, however. For reference, here are the links:

• [11] (no author credited)
• [12] (no author credited)

Both of these article, to me, mostly seem to focus on the influencer's trip to the site of the planecrash. They each spare a paragraph or two to sum up the crash itself, but it's mostly spent discussing the influencer. I'm also not an expert in Brazilian newspapers, especially very local ones, but I'm having a hard time finding information about either news source. juruaonline.com.br does not have an "about me" type page- all attempts to get one redirect you to their "advertise with us"/"submit a story" type pages. juruaemtempo.com.br does actually give you some information about its reporters, but none of them were apparently willing to attach their name to this piece. So far, they are still the only examples of any WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE we have for this crash. And while these two sources are not enough to prove notability to me (I really don't think this article says anything that isn't already covered in List of accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 737#1990s), they might be enough for somebody else to decide this is notable. So, thank you again for finding them @Fgnievinski! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also did a quick search for sources and can't find any online newspaper articles about the event. [13] fgnievinski (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom – Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: The event does not have in-depth, significant nor sustained continued coverage. Additionally, no lasting effects nor long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated as a result of the accident. Criterion #4 of the event criteria states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this accident lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to VASP#Accidents and incidents per WP:ATD-R. S5A-0043^Talk 10:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1974 Surgut mid-air collision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: There exists no reliable independent (significant) news coverage of the event, no secondary sources, no in-depth coverage, no (sustained) continued coverage, no demonstrated lasting effects nor long-term impacts on a significant region of the world that would make this event notable enough for a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Russia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Mid-air collision Yet another major aviation incident that russia was completely tight lipped about, sadly, even though its tragic, due to Russia's secrecy it cant warrant an article. if this took place anywhere else it would stand as an article itself. Lolzer3k 14:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1970s. Incident is sufficiently covered there. Meltdown627 (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This seems to have been an accident of some sort of airline flight. Plus, there were many casualties. If we can find sources and the airline's name, I'll say keep. If not, then as the others said, merge and redirect. The article does need to get fixed. Jeanette Ma' Bakker Martin (talk to me) 00:22, 9 October, 2024 (UTC)

  There is detailed information about the accident in an external link to this article. Kostja (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1970s per Meltdown627. This is a WP:News article without any secondary coverage to meet GNG, and there's nothing about fatal accidents that makes them inherently notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. An air accident that kills 14 people is clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability is not solely inherented because of the casualty count. For the most part, a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Surgut International Airport as it meets the criteria for inclusion under an accidents and incidents section of that article per WP:AIRCRASH. I disagree with that this accident is not notable nor significant in its impact or effects. The main issue here is verifiability rather than notability. As Lolzer3k points out, thanks to Soviet control and censorship of the media at the time, there are unlikely to be enough reliable, independent sources available to bring it up to meet the threshold for a stand alone article under current content policies. Dfadden (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are there certainly reliable secondary sources, including in-depth coverage of this accident. One of these is actually linked to this article. Of course, these sources are nearly all in Russian, but this in itself doesn't disqualify them. Kostja (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's more of a tertiary source/databse than a secondary source. The linked entry does not cite any sources for its information and per this discussion, the website, a self-published source, seems to have multiple issues, that make it generally unreliable. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have added another ref to the article from a database hosted by Scramble, the magazine of the Dutch Aviation Society [14]. Probably not enough on its own, but I would consider this an independent secondary source, quality tbd. Dfadden (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The website states that it's a database (a tertiary source), so it's still not a secondary source. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 01:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here right now. We have 3 different Merge/Redirect target articles suggested, two editors arguing for Keep and the nominator's Deletion nomination. Looks like No consensus right now so I'm going to give this discussion some more time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1970s per various. Add a single sentence at Surgut International Airport. Database references are not sufficient for passing WP:GNG or WP:RS but can be included at the Surgut Airport article. I wonder if anything was ever printed in any Soviet newspaper?  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kalawewa 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)

Non-notable station, also strongly sets off my "this is AI" senses. The glossy promotional tone screams LLM. The sole source in the article verifies nothing beyond the fact that it exists. I'd redirect this to Northern Line myself, but I'm sure that would be contested with an edit summary saying "take it to AfD", so here we are. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and Sri Lanka. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, its actually on the Batticaloa line not the Northern line. Dan arndt (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's... rather concerning. Thanks for correcting it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge to Batticaloa line if sources can't be found (has anyone attempted to look for sources in the local language?). Whether the article was or wasn't written by AI and/or whether it does or does not have a glossy promotional tone (I don't see it myself) are irrelevant to AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Dan arndt was kind enough to resolve the issues with tone. Compare what it looked like when I tagged it for tone versus after Dan arndt rewrote it: [15]. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Batticaloa line would be the best move, since sources that could establish why this station is notable are thin on the ground. TH1980 (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mavişehir 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)

Tagged as uncited almost a year ago. I could not find enough good sources to show it to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While I agree the article needs to be re-written and sourced, deleting this one in particular has no logic. I will go through these railway station articles in the coming days and add/expand to them with the new information and updates available. These articles were written years ago, and should be updated indeed. This comment goes for ALL IZBAN stations that are currently outdated. I will get to them all by the end of the month. (Central Data Bank (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep pending Central Data Bank's improvements. If the article can't be expanded after a reasonable amount of time (at least a couple of months) then merging and/or redirection to an appropriate broader article will be appropriate but there is no case for outright deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None at present

None at present

None at present

None at present

None at present

None at present

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