Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:23, 14 March 2024

WP:DELTRANS

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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation/archive

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 merge‎ to List of aviation accidents and incidents in Indonesia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Smart Aviation crash

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

super non-notable, a small plane and only a few on board TyHaliburtn (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Transportation. TyHaliburtn (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events~~, Transportation,~~ and Indonesia. Skynxnex (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment notability is not about the size of the airplane and number of people onboard; but it’s about coverage and lasting effects for events. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:EVENTCRIT, minimal coverage other than local news sources. No reason to expect WP:LASTING effects or WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosbif73 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Rosbif73, also doesn't meet Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Aircraft_accidents_and_incidents, I know it's an essay, but is the only guidance that exists. The subject wouldn't meet GNG which in the absence of meeting any other guidance it would need to.James.folsom (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, WP:AIRCRASH is only applicable to Aircraft, Airlines and Airport article, not for accident article itself. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Propose to merge into List of aviation accidents and incidents in Indonesia, we already have List of x type article in place, which includes small accidents/incidents like this one. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect Agree with Ckfasdf to merge with List of aviation accidents and incidents in Indonesia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Per SNOW Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 35

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

Non-notable and minor incident, fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG , WP:LASTING and while an essay, does fail WP:AIRCRASH. The incident doesn't have major consequences and coverage stopped 5 days ago with barely any major news websites talking about the incident. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:NOTNEWS etc. Mangoe (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 14:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Happens all the time. CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Tire falling off an airplane and no deaths, isn't notable. Routine news coverage, nothing lasting I'm afraid. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Wikipedia page is not really notable, since whenever has a part not fallen off an United aircraft?

-

UAL328.. But no seriously, a tire burst of a big aircraft like a Boeing 777 didn't really impact the plane too much. The only form of damage were the cars with no injuries. There isn't any problem with the article, it's just that there's nothing to add onto. After all of the "landing gear fell off the airplane" talk, what more information is there to add? The article is all filler based off an article released one day after the incident, a very brand new incident.

-

And the only reason the news isn't talking about this incident anymore, is because the aircraft wasn't in massive danger. It was just a simple maintenance issue (the news article sourced in the Wikipedia article doesn't specify if the maintenance was at fault by United technicians or Boeing technicians) as stated.

-

Some positives although, the incident has been reported by Fox Business, CBS News, NBC Bay News, ABC7 San Franscisco, New York Post and so many other news articles. Although they may be not credited since they were made March 7/8th so we may further wait or delete if the article quickly fades into obscurity and it is immortalized as a small part of United Airlines#Accidents and incidents. 70.167.194.163 (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not worthy of a whole page. Plane'n Boom1 (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, minor incident

with no encyclopedic value. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Relatively routine and very likely will not be WP:SUSTAINED. Not news. TLA^tlak 15:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This is a relatively minor incident, no one was hurt, and as others have said, mainstream news coverage has ceased after only a few days. Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not lasting coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 18:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is small and non-notable. Incidents like this one happens all the time.PatrickChiao (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: small incident. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 19:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the sources do not indicate that the incident would be notable Killarnee (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – it happens all the time. PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Blue Line (Dubai Metro). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

City Centre Mirdif (Dubai Metro)

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

This should be a redirect to Blue Line (Dubai Metro); as an unopened subway station with no secondary coverage (or references at all), it fails WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL, but the WP:BLAR has been repeatedly reverted, so here we are. ~ A412 ^talk! 15:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Saudi Arabia. ~ A412 ^talk! 15:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Blue Line (Dubai Metro). Web searches with several keywords have failed to find many sources with enough information to be cited in the article. Redtree21 (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Ford Levacar Mach I. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Levicar

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a duplicate of the Ford Levacar Mach 1 article. This is the older article, but it is inaccurately named and features less citations and information. I propose that this article be deleted, and any relevant information (as well as any links on other pages to this article) be migrated to the other article. Alternatively, this article can be made into a redirect to the other article. TKOIII (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} tag and not transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no further opinion on the nomination itself at this time. --Finngall ^talk 18:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could probably even speedy del as a duplicate. The "Ford Levacar Mach 1" article is much more complete than this (but still not very extensive) and largely duplicates this one. Oaktree b (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing here appears to be a PR or primary item, which has some value but doesn't help notability requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as it is ineligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I did not get into who is right or wrong, only into the use of two different names. Both were used so one article should point to the other. gidonb (talk) 02:12, 24 March 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) 02:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ford Levacar Mach I: as an ATD. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maritime Page

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

Not yet notable per WP:WEB. It is used as a source in the RUSI and Bellingcat pages cited, but not actually mentioned. In a WP:BEFORE search I could only find passing mentions of the site in three BusinessWorld articles , citing it for the number of shipyards in the Philippines in 2021: [1] [2] [3]. Wikishovel (talk) 09:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Websites, and Norway. Wikishovel (talk) 09:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The page claims that "Maritime Page has been acknowledged in publications by the Royal United Services Institute[1] and Bellingcat[2] for its contributions to maritime discussions." -- well, that's a bit misleading; neither source cited actually mentions Maritime Page, they just link it. And those are the only sources in the article.— Moriwen (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Towerlands Tram Road

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

Not notable;

Only Google search hits plagiarize Wikipedia (irvinescotland.info/*).
DuckDuckGo is no better.
Google Books search turns up at most two possible secondary sources: Wham, The Lost Railway Lines of Ayrshire and Stansfield, Ayrshire & Renfrewshire's Lost Railways. Paterson, History of the Counties of Ayr and Wigton, pts. 1-2: Kyle does not seem to include anything relevant.
Google News Archive turns up a number of primary sources: articles in the Glasgow Herald.
No Google Scholar hits.
Current content is exclusively original research. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 06:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 06:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 06:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 06:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Use of published maps - is this classes as original research? Rosser Gruffydd 13:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whey you attribute claims to maps that are not explicitly depicted on them, that is absolutely original research. Instances of this are omnipresent in the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:35, 19 March 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) 06:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What we have is so utterly full of OR and speculation that it's hardly clear what is fact and what is the author's personal thoughts and theories. Even if there were a notable topic here this would merit a healthy dose of TNT. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Audi DTM V8 engine

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because the reason I mentioned below:

Nominated this one of the many low quality article (from the article creator) since I have no choice to, considering this has been reverted twice without the reverter explaining why.

I've first proposed to merge this to Volkswagen-Audi V8 engine as they are the same as the production engines. Well, the numbers suggest that they are, not as 'prototype' as the article creator claimed. Since it sat unaddressed, I made the decision to merge, this got reverted because I forgot to add the editing summary. I redid this, which again got reverted. These articles are nothing but written stats without asserting notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: @SpacedFarmer: when you place a maintenance tag on an article, including proposing a merge with a {{merge}} tag, you are expected to start the discussion, and no evidence of that being done exists before you, yet again, rush to deletion. A basic WP:BEFORE check also should have landed coverage in Top Gear[4] and Jalopnik.[5]― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no comment on the substantive issue here, but must point out that SpacedFarmer did start a discussion, but nobody replied. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil Bridger: thanks for the correction. I only checked Audi DTM V8 engine and not Volkswagen-Audi V8 engine. My bad. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:N, plenty of sources. Mr.choppers | ✎ 02:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Only one article here is nominated. This is not how a bundled nomination is formatted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Article referenced and standardized with other articles about engines. If there is a better explanation for the alleged "low quality", I will change my vote, but in principle, nothing justifies a WP:TNT. Svartner (talk) 08:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Without prejudice on the merger. gidonb (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request to withdraw – I never got rerespond as I had been locked out of my account for the last few weeks. Whilst I still believe this should be merged as they are the same, I think it is appropriate to continue any conversation into WP:CARS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Under Kos

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

Repeatedly recreated, and already sent to draftspace twice. Search results show nothing about this street, and I couldn't verify if it even exists (or if it's some kind of hoax). CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a (somewhat amusing) literal translation, it looks like the street is called Pod Kosom. It's not immediately obvious if the translation is even correct, as the etymology isn't listed. A google search finds nothing of particular significance. The street was mentioned in a single recent Slobodna Dalmacija article apparently, based on the eponymous tag (in Croatian). If the city district of Meje, Split had an article, this could be redirected there perhaps. Most of the present article content is actually just about Marjan, Split. --Joy (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Transportation, and Croatia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a normal street on Marjan, fails GNG, doesn't deserve its own article. Note a BEFORE search should be for Pod kosom as noted above. SportingFlyer T·C 00:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Most of the article is copied from Marjan, Split. — Diannaa (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails notability guidelines without any available sources. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 15:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Consider salting if recreation is repeated again. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Modacity

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

The company doesn't seem notable because it doesn't have enough coverage from independent sources. The sources found so far only briefly mention it, and checking WP:BEFORE shows the same pattern of passing mentions, photo credits, or sources published by its founder. This suggests it doesn't meet the criteria in WP:CORPDEPTH. GSS ^💬 19:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Netherlands. GSS ^💬 19:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing NCORP. The duo behind the firm may pass NAUTHOR. I didn't check as the data in the article is not set up for such a change. Also, the sole incoming link is not substantial enough for a redirect. Remains delete. gidonb (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing notability guidelines. Here are the sources:
- this source only states subject being involved in the production of a video without anything in depth.
- This source is primarily an interview, and so not independent.
- this source is created by the founders of the subject so not secondary and independent. Stopped looking at sources from the same website as its articles that mentions the subject may be written by the founders. Same goes to this source
- A Bloomberg piece that I didn't checked on may also be mentioning the subject so not in depth.
By conclusion, the subject fails NCORP or GNG. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 06:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hahn Air

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

Small air carrier with ~2 planes. Article seems cobbled from 'history/about' sections of the company website, their press release and their rewrites, and few mentions in passing that fail WP:SIGCOV. I have serious concerns this fails WP:NCORP/WP:GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Germany. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too small and not fulfilling WP SIGCOV Old-AgedKid (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of roundabouts in Washington (state)

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

There are thousands upon thousands of roundabouts in the world (as the article states, 430 in Washington state alone), no idea why we would want to list them all. What's next, list of level crossings? Fails WP:NLIST. Fram (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Transportation, Lists, and Washington. Fram (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not a viable idea for a list. Violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE and should have its own Roundabout Wiki. Geschichte (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list of notable roundabouts might make a good article, but as none of the articles in Category:Roundabouts and traffic circles in the United States are in Washington state it's too soon for such a list to exist. FWIW Rotaries in Massachusetts exists but other than the lead paragraph suffers from the same issues as this list. Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: precedent for such a list from Rotaries in Massachusetts, List of traffic circles in New Jersey, List of circles in Washington, D.C., etc.
Per WP:LISTN, roundabouts in the state are frequently discussed as a group in reliable sources, with articles discussing the recent increase in roundabout construction in WA, tracking the number of roundabouts built, WSDOT's desire to replace other intersection types with roundabouts across the state, and guides for motorists to learn how to drive through state roundabouts.
I was surprised by the 430 number myself. It's possible that figure includes minor implementations such as neighborhood traffic circles; what WSDOT calls "modern roundabouts" are more notable and less numerous. As an alternative to deletion, WP:LISTCRITERIA could be limited to modern/major roundabouts, roundabouts on State highways in Washington or controlled by WSDOT, etc. Would also accept a move to Roundabouts in Washington (state), I guess, if it's the list that is in contention. PK-WIKI (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say that the listing is the main point of contention. Discourse about the number of roundabouts increasing does not mean that a collection (i.e. list) of each individual roundabout, including coordinates etc., bears encyclopedic relevance. The word "precedent" is disconcerting in that regard: In Norway, there are 3,428 roundabouts on national and county roads alone. The number excludes roundabouts on municipal roads, which makes the total skyrocket even higher. The encyclopedic topic at hand might be an article about the development and tendency to build roundabouts in region A, B or C. Geschichte (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There doesn't appear to be a strong consensus for these lists. The only formal discussion I've found is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of traffic circles in New Jersey from 2005 and that ended in "no consensus" and the three pages you list, along with this one, appear to be the only pages on the project that list or discuss roundabouts, traffic circles or rotaries in a given area. Thryduulf (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WSDOT has a page about proper driving in a roundabout: [6], and I can find several other articles relating to proper driving in roundabouts in WA state (not all from reliable sources). But I have yet to find any source that discusses roundabouts in Washington as a coherent single topic, and all of the sources cited in the article are primarily about other topics, making this article reek of WP:SYNTH. And anyway, a one-item list isn't much of a list at all. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet LISTN due to sources not discussing the topic in-depth and as a group; there are only occasional articles that mention more than one roundabout project at a time. The article's current contents can easily be merged into various other articles. Sounder Bruce 03:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails LISTN. Other articles on circles might not - isn't Washington DC famous for its circles? SportingFlyer T·C 16:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—this topic on its own is not notable. Other similar lists may be, but this one is not. Imzadi 1979 → 05:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing notable about roundabouts, a pretty common road intersection feature globally. Even though there aren't typically many in the US doesn't make this a notable topic. Ajf773 (talk) 10:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – two entries does not proves that it is a "list". Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 17:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable grouping in secondary sources, fails WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom etc --Devoke water 15:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Euro Quebec Hydro Hydrogen Project

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

Too small a snippet of history to be notable enough to have its own article - no objection if someone merges it if they know a suitable article to merge into Chidgk1 (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Canada. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was expecting this to be an easy delete, but on looking for sources: nope, actually there's a ton of stuff out there. I see half a dozen books (e.g.) and dozens of journal articles (e.g.) which discuss it.— Moriwen (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If anything, it needs expansion to make it more substantial, not deletion. Retroity (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice against a developed article. Nom nailed it. gidonb (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the Google books search actually provides some pretty substantial coverage including whole chapters on the subject. The nom says that Too small a snippet of history to be notable enough (emphasis mine) but I don't agree that's a very valid argument for deletion. Instead, we have to look for notability and I think this clears the WP:GNG threshold. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 00:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scandinavian hydrogen highway partnership

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

Although I found https://newenergy.is/en/portfolio/nordic-hydrogen-partnership/ I doubt there are enough good sources for this to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 07:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Iceland. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to its current name, Nordic Hydrogen Partnership (leaving the current title as a redirect). Sources e.g. here, here, here.— Moriwen (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hynor. This article provides almost no context. gidonb (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avenue Mohammed VI, Marrakesh

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

No evidence of sufficient notability per WP:GEOROAD, WP:SIGCOV. This is a major street, but there's not much else to say about it. It's not even one of the more central streets of the city (Avenue Mohammed V would maybe qualify for that). At most, you could list some businesses along it, but that's not significant coverage and would fall into WP:TRAVELGUIDE-style trivia. R Prazeres (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. R Prazeres (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Transportation Proposed deletions

Tiger Stripes colour scheme (via WP:PROD on 8 September 2023)

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

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 ==Transportation==
 <!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Smart Aviation crash}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/United_Airlines_Flight_35}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City Centre Mirdif (Dubai Metro)}}