Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Transportation|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Transportation. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

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

Transportation

Goldcross Cycles

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

Stores appears closed in 2013: https://www.rotorburn.com/forums/index.php?threads/goldcross-closing-down.263422/ . Very scant article with few details. Teraplane (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Teraplane (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B2 (New York City bus)

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

Non-notable bus route that could be redirected or deleted. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:ROTM essay. There does not appear that WP:SIGCOV is present (practically no WP:independent sources). Викидим (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B3 (New York City bus)

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

Non-notable bus route that could be redirected or deleted. See AFD for B2. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:ROTM essay. There does not appear that WP:SIGCOV is present (practically no WP:independent sources). Викидим (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B4 (New York City bus)

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

Non-notable bus route that could be redirected or deleted. See AFD for B2 and B3. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:ROTM essay. There does not appear that WP:SIGCOV is present (practically no WP:independent sources). Викидим (talk) 05:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B7 (New York City bus)

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

Non-notable bus route that could be redirected or deleted. See AFDs for B2, B3, and B4. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:ROTM essay. There does not appear that WP:SIGCOV is present (practically no WP:independent sources). Викидим (talk) 05:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B8 (New York City bus)

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

Non-notable bus route that could be redirected or deleted. See AFDs for B2, B3, B4, and B7. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:ROTM essay. There does not appear that WP:SIGCOV is present (practically no WP:independent sources). Викидим (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B9 (New York City bus)

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

Non-notable bus route that could be redirected or deleted. See AFDs for B2, B3, B4, B7, and B8. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:ROTM essay. There does not appear that WP:SIGCOV is present (practically no WP:independent sources). Викидим (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B11 (New York City bus)

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

Non-notable bus route that could be redirected or deleted. See AFDs for B2, B3, B4, B7, and B8. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:ROTM essay. There does not appear that WP:SIGCOV is present (practically no WP:independent sources). Викидим (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B12 (New York City bus)

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

Non-notable bus route that could be redirected or deleted. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B6 (New York City bus)

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

Non-notable bus route that could be redirected or deleted. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:ROTM essay. There does not appear that WP:SIGCOV is present. Викидим (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B1 (New York City bus)

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

Non-notable bus route that could be redirected or deleted. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The non-trivial information is contained in the article does not seem to be WP:Verifiable. Викидим (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of bus routes in Brooklyn#B1: Restore redirect for now, for consistency with other NYC bus route articles that do not have their own articles. I didn't find much significant coverage of this bus route, though I might just be looking in the wrong place. This bus is descended from a streetcar line that is notable; however, that route, 86th Street Line (Brooklyn), already has its own article. Epicgenius (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabian Airlines Flight 3830

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. An incident while the aircraft is taxiing after maintenance with no passengers on board is not notable. The aircraft was not in revenue service at the time, so assigning a flight number is improper. I can not find significant coverage of this incident, with the only WP:RS being this brief accident report. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Transportation, Malaysia, and Saudi Arabia. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article contradicts itself too. If the aircraft was written off (hull loss) I doubt it carried 319 passengers later... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Boeing 747 hull losses#2000s. Article itself is non-notable and doesn't meet WP:GNG, but the incident itself is mentioned on the aforementioned page with a flight number (not-sure exactly where its from, but it does show up elsewhere online). Epluribusunumyall (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant coverage, no lasting effects. I would also (weakly) oppose a redirect as the mention of a flight number makes no sense and is unsourced. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is a stub, and another problem is that it doesn't cite any sources for whatever reason... not to mention the topic of the article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. TG-ARTICLE Well, if you want to talk to me, then why don't you click this button? There's also my contributions. 14:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article has no sources and contains unverified claims, so should either be draftified or deleted; redirecting doesn't make sense in this case, because the flight number is not valid (as multiple editors have pointed out). (The accident report found by the nominator does not fully verify the claims made in the article either.) I was about to !vote delete but subsequently found a few articles that suggest that there is more to the story of this 2001 incident, as discussed in this 2023 article in Simple Flying magazine titled "The Boeing 747-300 That Was Written Off After Taxiing Into A Ditch"; the 2001 Arab News articles about the incident including "Saudia plane skids into monsoon drain" and "Malaysia Firm Blamed for Saudia Mishap". Avia Magazine (2014) may also provide a few additional facts, though this incident was mentioned as one of 18 instances in which aircraft were lost by Saudia. But perhaps the facts gleaned from these sources could be merged into Boeing 747 hull losses#2000s as suggested above. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG. No sources cited and no significant coverage. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 06:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Crozet, Virginia, train crash

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

Fails WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS. Train-truck accidents are very common in the United States. The only reason this specific incident got so much coverage is because there happened to be some politicians on the train. Cutlass ^Ciera 21:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Virginia. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NOTNEWS, WP:SENSATIONAL, LASTING Agree with nom. This is a WP:ROUTINE event that received coverage in some news media outlets because some politicians were involved. Coverage was short lived after the accident, and this event had no significant impact. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This one is pretty well written and sourced. Regardless of the Not news and other linked reminders ... Category:Railway accidents and incidents in the United States by state or territory is evidence that these disaster articles are an accepted part of Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This did have lasting coverage, including coverage that actually occurred over a year after the event - which is already currently in the article - and as such the two arguments for deletion don't apply. SportingFlyer T·C 01:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While notability is not inherited, it can be conferred, and the fact this was a special chartered train - not there happened to be some politicans on [it] - means this was notable, and received coverage accordingly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being a "special train" isn't grounds for being notable. If one of the Cass Shays hit a car and someone died there wouldn't be nearly this much coverage. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It may be a common occurrence, but this particular incident was well documented, both by the NTSB and the media. There are numerous public domain images of the incident, and it is covered with extensive detail in both the court and NTSB records. Also it is notable that a heritage train set was involved in the incident, and it was not a regularly scheduled passenger train. Cocoaguy (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being "well documented" doesn't mean it's notable. A bunch of routine coverage of a type of accident that is extremely common and run of the mill just because American news media is known for being keen to report on things that will get eyes, while not necessarily very notable. Basically every accident involving a train and truck is investigated by either the NTSB or the local police. Being a "heritage train" is also not grounds to being notable. Reading and Northern 425 hit a car and there isn't an article on that minor incident. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per prev noms. Article name does have grammar error in it and if kept should be moved to 2018 Crozet, Virginia train crash without the the second comma after Virginia. -

Epluribusunumyall (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Epluribusunumyall: The second comma is correct - see MOS:GEOCOMMA. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535 I get what MOS:GEOCOMMA is trying to relay, but my reading of it is more in regards to sentences within an article and not the title of an article. For a title it doesn't really make grammatical sense - in my opinion - to have the second comma create a parenthetical of just "train crash," as it leaves context lacking from the rest of the title sentence. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plug-in hybrid car energy efficiency

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

Not encyclopedic; Wikipedia is not a buyer's guide. The article is a feature and cost comparison between a selection of vehicles produced 7 to 10 years ago. It consists of only U.S.-market vehicles, and keeping it both up-to-date and complete on an ongoing basis would be impossible. Sable232 (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Sable232 (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The stats could ofcourse be included into the wikipedia pages for the individual car models like is done in Honda Accord (ninth generation)#Honda Accord (ninth generation). Rolluik (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Out-of-date article that probably shouldn't have existed in the first place per WP:NOTDATABASE ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

İzmir–Nazilli Regional

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

Tagged over a decade ago as unsourced. Cites on Turkish article are all primary sources and don’t show notability Chidgk1 (talk) 07:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ribble Link Trust

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

Unnotable subject on it's own, WP:MERGE to the main article on the Ribble Link or delete. -Samoht27 (talk) 05:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Transportation, and United Kingdom. -Samoht27 (talk) 05:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ribble Link or delete. There's this [1] but on its own isn't sufficient to pass GNG/NORG. If as it seems the Trust is associated with the one project then it makes sense to include info. there. The Trust is mentioned in the target article - it could perhaps have a subheading there. Don't think the content needs merging as it's not supported by citations. Rupples (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Motorcycle Shows

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

Defunct tradeshow. Was nation-wide for about a decade, but it fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. mikeblas (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that "being defunct" is not an arugument for deletion. It may fail notability, but the fact it no longer exists isn't relevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that "being defunct" is not used as an argument for deletion here. Remember: context is important. Here, it's offered as a simple and objective descriptoin of the subject. -- mikeblas (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Banaras Flyover

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

Does not meet WP:GNG as well as WP:NGEO. Article needs a rewrite as well. TNM101 (chat) 15:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. TNM101 (chat) 15:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is terribly written, I wholeheartedly agree, but I don't believe this is a candidate for WP:TNT. A quick google search (in English only) pulls up enough results to meet WP:GNG. I'm sure there's much more in Urdu. Also, I think it may have also been named the Varanasi Flyover at one point? Angryapathy (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't mean the reason for the nom was its poor writing, it was actually about it not meeting notability criteria. Although if there are reliable sources, I may as well withdraw the nom TNM101 (chat) 17:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the Varanasi Flyover. The lack of details in the initial description may have led to confusion, making it seem poorly written. However, the actual information we gathered through a detailed survey was perceived as promotional by some individuals, which may have added to the misunderstanding.Abdulmuqtaddirkhan (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)Abdul Muqtaddir Khan[reply]

Delete. I don't see enough in the way of independent sources to regard it as notable -- as far as I can see references 6 to 9 are the same, accounting for almost half of all the references. Why should any flyover be regarded as notable? Only if something important happened on it. As it happens the city where I live (Marseilles, France) has a flyover about 3 km in length, the avenue Alexandre Fleming, over the district of Belle de Mai, and it's not the only one, but I'd be very surprised if anyone wanted Wikipedia articles about them. Athel cb (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but that's not made due to the rapes and the killings in Qasba_Aligarh_massacre Abdulmuqtaddirkhan (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)AbdulMuqtaddirKhan[reply]
Keep The sources currently in the article and even more in a BEFORE search do demonstrate it passes WP:GNG as a major infrastructure project, though it does need a rewrite. SportingFlyer T·C 01:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Comilla bus crash

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

A WP:News article based on a brief burst of news coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Bangladesh. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:LASTING. Cutlass ^Ciera 21:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Pennsylvania Turnpike crash

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

Fails WP:LASTING and also WP:NEVENT Cutlass ^Ciera 23:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The fact that the NTSB got involved shows notability, this wasn't a fender-bender with a few people. Oaktree b (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The NTSB investigating something does not make it notable. Countless road accidents have been investigated by them but that detail doesn't mean each and every one deserves an article. Cutlass ^Ciera 23:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Pennsylvania. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's also coverage in 2022 of the NTSB findings [2], [3]. Coverage of the accident in 2021 [4], that's almost two years work of coverage, that's sustained coverage. Some talk of lawsuits after, but I can't find RS about them. Oaktree b (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5 deaths and 60 injured is more than notable. It was also the most severe one to that point in time on the road [5]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this wasnt a random accident, people died in this crash Codonified (talk) 12:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of fatal road accidents, This one may be notable, but that doesn't make it notable in itelf. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By virtue of the fact that this was an "accident" carries with the implication that this was random. How can it not be random? Did some dastardly person orchestrate this? Or perhaps it was the Fate of 60 or so people to collide on that day at that specific moment? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of randomness (or lack of being random) is not part of the criteria for notability. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of non-trivial references, so I think WP:GNG is satisfied, as well as WP:EVENTCRIT. WP:LASTING is not a criteria for notability. -- mikeblas (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although there is coverage by some news media outlets, I can't see this event as notable. I empathize that people were killed and injured but this type of stuff happens all the time on United States highways. Having this on Wikipedia seems to be pandering to the salacious. In any case, this is a WP:ROUTINE event. And Wikipedia is not a newspaper WP:NOTNEWS. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite being an unusually large car crash, it was "just" a large car crash. I don't see it rising to the level of notability set out by WP:EVENTS. In particular, the coverage is concentrated over a very short time - almost exclusively two single days, in fact (the date of the crash, Jan 5, and the release of the NTSB report on Feb 6). --Tserton (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Again, this is not a question of if YOU think this subject is notable but what reliable sources say. Our own opinions are not relevant. A source review would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the most part we usually note these large-scale accidents within the History section of the highway it took place (here, Interstate 76 (Ohio–New Jersey)), but no accidents are noted in that article itself, and the PA Turnpike article itself is already long enough. This accident isn't really of note outside a short paragraph, possibly in the article for Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania. Nate • (chatter) 23:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania. The article meets WP:RS, but I agree with Steve Quinn's WP:NOTNEWS assertion. According to WP:EVENTS, not every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article. Thus, merging it will keep the details of the incident intact, but from all indications it does not warrant a separate article.--DesiMoore (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Jax

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

It has been 3 years, and not even one has been made, this is why we have wp:not, it fails this for many reasons. Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alpha Motor Corporation as WP:TOOSOON. Merging (if any, as the target already mentions the subject) can be done from history. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

İAOSB Müdürlüğü (Tram İzmir)

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

Appears to lack any significant coverage and fails WP:GNG. Note that train stations have no inherent notability (per WP:NTRAINSTATION) and I'm just not seeing anything beyond routine sources. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Turkey. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect T3 (Tram İzmir) as ATD. The creator made articles for every station and they cannot be WP:BLARED since there already has been a draftification attempt, so might be good to convert this to a batch nom? Jumpytoo Talk 06:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jumpytoo: I do intend to nominate the rest of the recent creations as a batch, but I prefer to test the waters first before doing a batch nom that could end up being a WP:TRAINWRECK. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, why can't they be redirected due to being draftified? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify I meant BLARED without discussion, since the draftification was opposed they have to go through AfD Jumpytoo Talk 22:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still confused, since drafting isn't redirecting, I'm not seeing why "opposed draftification" means "cannot boldy redirect". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If one opposed draftification, it would be reasonable to expect they would oppose a redirection too. Theres nothing that disallows a BLAR after draftification, but it usually will be fruitless since it would likely be reverted and youd have to AfD anyways Jumpytoo Talk 17:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to line, I did my best to find sources and did not find any independent sigcov of this station. Turkish Wikipedia's sources were not helpful. Support similarly redirecting other station articles to this line. Toadspike [Talk] 14:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thank you for your feedback. I understand the concerns about notability, but I believe that the articles on the stations are important and can be kept. The stations on the Izmir T3 tram line play a significant role in the city's public transportation infrastructure, and I am willing to support their notability with additional sources and content.

The Izmir T3 line is a vital part of the city's transportation network, and these stations are integral to that. There are independent sources, such as local news articles and reports about transportation, that cover these stations and their significance. I am happy to provide these sources to demonstrate that the stations are notable beyond routine sources.

To strengthen the articles and address the notability concerns, I propose:

Independent news sources: Adding citations from local newspapers, transportation reports, and public relations materials to highlight the stations' role in Izmir's transport system.
Their contribution to public transport: Emphasizing the importance of these stations in the context of the wider public transport network in Izmir.
Diverse sourcing: Supplementing the articles with a broader range of sources, such as independent studies or official reports, to give a clearer picture of their significance.

Given their role in the transportation system, I believe these stations do meet the notability guidelines. If there are any specific additional sources you would recommend, I am open to including them.

I also understand the concerns and am open to improving the articles further. I believe with the right additions, these articles can meet Wikipedia's standards for notability.

Thank you again for your input! Erdem Ozturk 2021 (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Farakka Port

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

The existence of this port is questionable due to a serious lack of sources. A Google search yields no results for the so-called "Farakka Port". The cited sources in the article refer instead to a Farakka inland waterway, used for transporting coal to the Farakka Super Thermal Power Station near the Farakka Barrage. It seems it is actually referring to a floating terminal listed here. In any case, the topic fails to meet WP:GNG. The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, India, and West Bengal. The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merge some supported content to a section in Farakka. - Davidships (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is not a lot of coverage in English, but it's enough to verify, and combine with significant coverage in Bengali, and it passes GNG. I added another English language source. I've been redirecting and merging a lot of unsourced Indian-related stubs, but this is an easy keep. Bearian (talk) 11:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Bearian. I have added two more sources for WP:V. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stations

İAOSB Müdürlüğü (Tram İzmir)

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

Appears to lack any significant coverage and fails WP:GNG. Note that train stations have no inherent notability (per WP:NTRAINSTATION) and I'm just not seeing anything beyond routine sources. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Turkey. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect T3 (Tram İzmir) as ATD. The creator made articles for every station and they cannot be WP:BLARED since there already has been a draftification attempt, so might be good to convert this to a batch nom? Jumpytoo Talk 06:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jumpytoo: I do intend to nominate the rest of the recent creations as a batch, but I prefer to test the waters first before doing a batch nom that could end up being a WP:TRAINWRECK. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, why can't they be redirected due to being draftified? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify I meant BLARED without discussion, since the draftification was opposed they have to go through AfD Jumpytoo Talk 22:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still confused, since drafting isn't redirecting, I'm not seeing why "opposed draftification" means "cannot boldy redirect". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If one opposed draftification, it would be reasonable to expect they would oppose a redirection too. Theres nothing that disallows a BLAR after draftification, but it usually will be fruitless since it would likely be reverted and youd have to AfD anyways Jumpytoo Talk 17:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to line, I did my best to find sources and did not find any independent sigcov of this station. Turkish Wikipedia's sources were not helpful. Support similarly redirecting other station articles to this line. Toadspike [Talk] 14:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thank you for your feedback. I understand the concerns about notability, but I believe that the articles on the stations are important and can be kept. The stations on the Izmir T3 tram line play a significant role in the city's public transportation infrastructure, and I am willing to support their notability with additional sources and content.

The Izmir T3 line is a vital part of the city's transportation network, and these stations are integral to that. There are independent sources, such as local news articles and reports about transportation, that cover these stations and their significance. I am happy to provide these sources to demonstrate that the stations are notable beyond routine sources.

To strengthen the articles and address the notability concerns, I propose:

Independent news sources: Adding citations from local newspapers, transportation reports, and public relations materials to highlight the stations' role in Izmir's transport system.
Their contribution to public transport: Emphasizing the importance of these stations in the context of the wider public transport network in Izmir.
Diverse sourcing: Supplementing the articles with a broader range of sources, such as independent studies or official reports, to give a clearer picture of their significance.

Given their role in the transportation system, I believe these stations do meet the notability guidelines. If there are any specific additional sources you would recommend, I am open to including them.

I also understand the concerns and am open to improving the articles further. I believe with the right additions, these articles can meet Wikipedia's standards for notability.

Thank you again for your input! Erdem Ozturk 2021 (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation Proposed deletions

None at present

Transportation-related Images and media for Deletion

None at present

Transportation-related Miscellany for deletion

None at present

Transportation-related Templates for Deletion

None at present

Transportation-related Categories for Discussion

None at present

Transportation-related Deletion Review

None at present

Transportation-related Redirects for Discussion

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