Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

561 (Transperth Bus Route)

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

No WP:SIGCOV at all. Steelkamp (talk) 04:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Steelkamp (talk) 04:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

does have significant coverage. It's a bus route, and the article describes said route as well as start and end points. Also has reference which links to the bus timetable and map. Wikipedia's SIGCOV guideline states that an article must "address the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." The article addresses the topic directly, by talking about the bus route itself. It details the journey the route takes from start to finish. And it also provides a reference to the timetable/map of the route, meaning there is no need for additional research. For these reasons this article should remain open. There is nothing wrong with adding bus route articles to wikipedia as they are an important part of everyday transport, and this route in particular connects two important stations in the southern suburbs as well as the local school in Secret Harbour. Rick Astlios (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it is also a new article and more content (images/paragraphs) will be added in future if the article remains up Rick Astlios (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need more substantial sources than just a timetable and map, of which at least some should be independent sources. As far as I'm aware, no such sources exist. Steelkamp (talk) 05:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG as its only reference is to a timetable which is a primary source. I couldn't find any other secondary reliable sources such as independent news articles from a Google search. Fork99 (talk) 05:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also, if for some reason this was decided to be kept, the title should be something like Perth bus route 561 in line with similar articles like Sydney bus route 333 and London Buses route 1. Fork99 (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is difficult to see how any bus route could be notable, but this one certainly is not. Bduke (talk) 05:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Bus routes can be notable, but this one does not have significant coverage from secondary sources and thus fails GNG. Sounder Bruce 05:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - some Perth bus routes are in their historic context 'notable' at a stretch - the problem with a route like 561 there is buckley's chance of actually adequately providing WP:RS that actually are in places that might have something. Google is a waste of time. Trove might have had something, but the route is something that is less than 25 years old, and as a result, nothing short of the archives of the ticket and timetable newsletter might have something - but then they do look at the older era. A possible sideway glimpse in a real live archive - https://slwa.wa.gov.au/pdf/ephemera/pr11903tragen.pdf which any of the Perth based editors could access if they had the interest to physically check - might have something, but the Secret Harbour locality (which has little of help in the article to identify when it was actually specifically developed as a locality) is 1984 + in age, which means that the chance of an easily accessible community news service for the area is also zilch, as it would require whichever newspaper to have locality specific news, which might have had comment about public transport... The Sound Telegraph appears to have no interest in bus routes. To assert notability of a bus route like this, is I am afraid to say, pointless. JarrahTree 15:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Technically could be redirected to list of bus routes in Perth, Western Australia#500–599 but the article is really new and also dabbed so delete is reasonable. gidonb (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Bab-el-Mandeb#History. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge of the Horns

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

CRYSTALBALL proposed infrastructure with marginal & routine coverage for a bridge project that was cancelled 15 years ago. Very few references none of which are anything more than routine coverage of a proposed project. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Yemen. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bab-el-Mandeb#History where this is mentioned. This was alwasy a pie-in-the-sky idea that never had realistic plans. Redirect Al Noor City as well. Even in the aughts, the idea of building bridge to nowhere or to a megacity built out of nothing in Yemen should have gotten you laughed out of the room. Reywas92^Talk 15:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Reywas. No evidence of long-term notability to justify a standalone article. –dlthewave ☎ 18:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Heartland Museum of Military Vehicles

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

Fails WP:NORG; written like an advertisement. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Military, Transportation, and Nebraska. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this does somehow survive deletion I am able to get some photos for the article. I haven't looked much into the Museum itself so I can't currently comment on it's notability. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 04:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not written like an advertisement, instead it needs improvement, not deletion. I'm appalled to see this nomiated for deletion. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I spent a little bit of time tonight cleaning up, updating references, adding a new reference to a 2016 article in Recoil (magazine). We need some help from a wordsmith to expand the text. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, I've found some sourcing. Cleanup is possible, not a reason to delete. This is nowhere near TNT level. Star Mississippi 14:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This page need to be rewritten to not be like an advertisement, but there are some articles online about the museum that make it notable. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 17:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Apart from being written like an advertisement (WP:NORG), this entry fails WP:GNG. Its only sources are its own website. AstridMitch (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2024

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Could be notable, but sourcing is primary in the article. I can only find various travel blogs or listings for them [1], without much coverage at all. Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasonable coverage in books and news sources. gidonb (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disagreement here among editors on the quality of the sourcing in the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ward Thomas Removals

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGSIG. The FT article is an interview with the founder. Wikilover3509 (talk) 6:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: I have fixed spacing in the header that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is also a 2013 Telegraph "SME Library" item [2] but is also more a profile piece about the company founder. A firm going about its business but I am not seeing the claim to notability and the detailed coverage needed. AllyD (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021 English Channel disaster

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

The article concerns a single incident of the ongoing English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present) and does not need to have its own article. Firsttwintop (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC) — Firsttwintop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ( Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, France, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (at least for now) - I could be wrong but it being the most deadly of these reported incidents makes it notable right? Maybe in the future if (heaven forbid) something else happens that may not ring true but right now it is. 2406:5A00:CC0A:9200:F885:F46D:3F46:5787 (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The main article notes the incident properly: "On 24 November, the deadliest incident on record occurred. An inflatable dinghy carrying 30 migrants capsized while attempting to reach the UK, resulting in 27 deaths and one person missing. The victims included a pregnant woman and three children.". It would therefore fortify the request for it to be deleted simply because it lacks notability and it is not news. It is not appropriate in the context of the main article to create a standalone article for this one incident. Firsttwintop (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC) (

Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

Merge to English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present). This information isn't useless, but it belongs in the article about the main subject. There's no reason to split off random pieces of the topic into their own articles. Firsttwintop, did you create an account just to nominate it for deletion? There's no rule against that, but it's unusual. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The information is already on the article, but I support the gist of the proposal. Firsttwintop (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 27 is a significant number of deaths. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus. As an aside, it's interesting that this nomination (originally a PROD) was one of this editor's first edits. How did you even know about AFDs?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. This appears to be a well-referenced and not-insignificant disaster. BD2412 T 00:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The references are more than adequate to justify keeping this disaster and its consequences as a separate article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present). The article is one separate event of a series of migrant crossings that have been going on for years. It may be overtaken in the future by a higher number of deaths. There is no reason for individual events of this series of migrant crossings to have their own page when they can be properly accommodated in English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present). Mariawest1965 (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

Keep: This incident is notable not just from the large loss of life, but also because the level of public interest in that led both to the revelations about how the boat traffic was being treated by "rescue" services, and to some political/policy changes. That meets WP:EVENT and needs the more detailed record that this generally-well-referenced article provides, rather than shoe-horning just a brief summary into the main article. - Davidships (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present): the event is just another event of the migrant crossings, not justifying the separation of the single event from the main article, and could possibly be displaced as being the most deaths in migrant crossings in the future. MonsterRacer1 (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC) — MonsterRacer1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ( Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]
MonsterRacer1, how did you find this AFD on your first edit? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading the article and saw that it had been nominated for deletion; then I read the main article and found the information on the main article too, so I thought I would join in the discussion. MonsterRacer1 (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, no one has supported the nomination with a specific delete !vote, but the !votes are divided between keep and merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of this AfD nomination. This clearly fulfills WP:NEVENT given the sheer amount of coverage it has received. The article is well written and sourced, so no major cleanup needed either. This article counts 1300+ words, and the proposed merger would include most of its content into a page that has less than double the amount of words, giving WP:UNDUE weight to this single event. Keep is in my opinion the only possible option. Broc (talk) 08:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article addresses a notable subject; 27 deaths (a large number) and the deadliest incident recorded by the IOM in the English Channel. Article also has multiple citations, so it is well researched. —Mjks28 (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I propose to modify the discussion so that the deletion discussion be simultaneously interpreted as a merge discussion to English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present). I still think the points I have made are relevant and others have shared similar views. It is already in the article so merging it would effectively achieve the same outcome, but I do not think it deserves its own wholly separate article, for something so insignificant in a huge series of migrant crossings. Firsttwintop (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC) — Firsttwintop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ( Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

That would be inappropriate, I think, and would muddy the water. The points being made and due weight to be given to them can be easily handled by the uninvolved closer in due course. - Davidships (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable event, covered in multiple books as well as all the media reporting in the article. E.g. [3],[4],[5],[6]. Without a doubt a notable event with lasting significance. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This fulfils WP:NEVENT. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please note that Firsttwintop (talk · contribs) and MonsterRacer1 (talk · contribs) have been blocked as block-evading sockpuppets. - Aoidh (talk) 03:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Bridge. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bridges construction

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

I declined User:Flemmish Nietzsche's speedy ("dup of Bridge") because it's more of a subtopic/content fork. However, as it stands this article does not actually make the case for being a coherent topic. The parent article is not large and this child article appears to have few if any cites that support its topic claims (historical facts, engineering opinions, etc.). The cites are for small specific details. There are too many different types of bridges, each with own construction method, and each already has its own article. And I agree bridges already has both well-cited history and a well-linked summary-style of the types. DMacks (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As the nominator for deletion under A10. Of course not all the content is an exact duplicate, but it appears to be a translation from the Russian article, and "Bridges construction" is essentially the same topic as bridges, so I thought A10 would work here under WP:SNOW of this ever being a keep at AfD. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The same editor as created the enwiki article is the only substantive contributor to that ruwiki article. That's not a license problem. DMacks (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying it is a license issue, rather it's an issue with the ruwiki contributor trying to push their translation of their russian article onto enwiki when we already have an article on bridges, which again is essentially the same thing as "bridges construction". Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Obviously not disputing that aspect. DMacks (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the "Bridge" page there is no information about the methods and stages of constructing bridges. Therefore, the "Bridges construction" page is planned primarily to describe various technologies for creating bridges, and these two pages will not compete with each other. VasilijB (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Engineering, and Transportation. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Having something on this seems a good idea. Not sure what we have is it. But not sure it's unsalvageable either. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (selectively) into bridge. The overlap is too great. gidonb (talk) 01:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or Merge any previously unused reliable sourcing into Bridge). Agree with DMacks view ("many different types of bridges, each with own construction method, and each already has its own article"). Paul W (talk) 09:02, 10 June 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 Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge is a suitable ATD here, as I share a lot of the concerns raised by the nom about the article, specifically about scope. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Tanay bus accident

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (events). No evidence of lasting effects based on GNews Archives and GBooks search. GNews shows a temporary ban on field trips which lasted merely six months. A brief and cited mention is already at List_of_traffic_collisions_(2000–present)#2017 so a redirect ther can be an alternative to deletion. I've also added the reference mentioned above as a citation in said entry. Lenticel ^(talk) 09:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 09:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Per nominator

TheNuggeteer (talk) 09:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this well-developed article as a legitimate SPINOFF that passes EVENT. Just 7 years have passed since this accident in which 50 people died. Societal impact beyond the event was acknowledged by nom. Deleting this article will further increase the disparity between the accidents that are being kept and deleted for developed nations versus developing nations. This nomination raises a major equity concern. gidonb (talk) 10:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:LASTING, accident led to nationwide reforms on field trips and other off-campus activities throughout all school levels up to college in the Philippines in both private and public institutions – instituted after the ban was lifted.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to List of traffic collisions (2000–present); Wikipedia is not a collection of news stories. I'll gladly change my !vote if anyone can find at least two retrospective sources to demonstrate sustained coverage, as opposed to news articles and updates. Whether people died or whether it happened in the Philippines are not reasons to keep an article, as I'm sure the other !voters are well aware. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a distraction. The article should be kept by EVENT. The rest is something to keep in mind. A general concern. gidonb (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:LASTING per Hariboneagle's and Gidonb's arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep satisfies WP:EVENT. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Clarence Railway. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simpasture railway station

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

Fails GNG. Of the seven sources, two are trivial mentions, four don't mention the station at all, and one (Priestley) has brief mentions of a station of similar name but many decades earlier. A BEFORE search does not find anything more substantial. My bold redirect to Clarence Railway was removed by the article's creator. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and United Kingdom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Sadly, this now-gone depot was only notable at a local level. TH1980 (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It existed at one point and is documented to have. Why not accept it was once around when ROF Aycliffe existed. DragonofBatley (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP: Consistency and per WP: Notable. As it's got coverage in quite a few books and articles. DragonofBatley (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you're making up a non-existent "consistency" policy, this article cites no books, and the citations present do not give significant coverage of the station. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It existed at one point and is documented to have. So you should get over it and accept it was once around when ROF Aycliffe existed. DragonofBatley (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to "get over" anything, train stations are not notable on Wikipedia simply by virtue of once existing, per community consensus. You don't get to ignore community consensus just because it's your article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a difference of opinion on the quality of the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Clarence Railway per nomination. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It existed DragonofBatley (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:IDHT is strong with you, train stations are not notable solely for having once existed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P. Off DragonofBatley (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like No consensus. When presenting your argument, please cite current, relevant policy and guidelines and focus on the article and its sources, not other contributors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Clarence Railway as a WP:ATD. S5A-0043^Talk 21:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ per WP: Notability. DragonofBatley (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I haven't looked through all the sources yet, but no one has disputed Pi.1415926535's analysis, so I lean towards redirecting this. More importantly, are we just going to let this remark from DragonofBatley slide? I'm pretty sure that's a personal attack. Toadspike [Talk] 15:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After re-reading DoB's comments to make sense of this, I see no valid argument for keeping this article. If DoB can provide citations to the "quite a few books" they claim that cover this station, they can ping me and I'll reconsider. Toadspike [Talk] 15:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Clarence Railway. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Demons Bridge railway station

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

Fails GNG. Of the three sources, two are trivial mentions and one does not mention the station at all. A BEFORE search does not find anything more substantial. My bold redirect to Clarence Railway was removed by the article's creator. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and United Kingdom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP: Consistency and per WP: Notable. As it's got coverage in quite a few books and articles. DragonofBatley (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What books? None are cited in the article and you haven't given any examples. And there is no policy or guideline called consistency, it is a disambig page where none of the mentioned pages have anything to do with "keeping articles because other articles happen to exist". It seems like you're making up things to support retaining the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It existed at one point and is documented to have. So you should get over it and accept it was once around when ROF Aycliffe existed. Personal feelings? Is it feeling oriented when arguing somewhere existed at one point. DragonofBatley (talk) 08:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you feel the need to copy-paste the same incoherent arguments across multiple AfDs, I will copy my refutation of your "arguments": I don't need to "get over" anything, train stations are not notable on Wikipedia simply by virtue of once existing, per community consensus. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stillington railway station about related article Stillington railway station. I'm personally of the opinion that these two articles, plus other similar ones should be considered collectively. There are some references in reliable sources. Per @Garuda3:'s comments on the other article's deletion discussion it doesn't make sense to my mind to delete this station's article and introduce inconsistency breaking adjacent article's navigation templates. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 16:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and even @Trainsandotherthings feels they should be deleted and hes not even in the UK 😂. Pmsl DragonofBatley (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you act like a grown up, please? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nomination. The arguments above are thoroughly unconvincing, relying on made up policies and personal feelings. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It existed at one point and is documented to have. So you should get over it and accept it was once around when ROF Aycliffe existed. Personal feelings? Is it feeling oriented when arguing somewhere existed at one point. DragonofBatley (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per nomination would be the best choice here. While the station itself is notable only on a local level, the railway it once served is notable enough for a Wikipedia page. TH1980 (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After careful consideration of the content and sourcing of the article on Demons Bridge railway station, it is evident that significant concerns exist regarding its notability under Wikipedia's guidelines. The station appears to lack substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish its significance. While the topic is of local interest, the article does not meet the general notability guideline (GNG) due to insufficient verifiable information. Therefore, the recommended action is delete. This decision aligns with Wikipedia's core content policies, ensuring that articles reflect topics of encyclopedic significance with adequate sourcing. Alternative actions such as merge or redirect are not feasible given the current state of the article and the lack of related content to integrate or redirect towards.Yakov-kobi (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Strike out AI-generated comment. Owen× ☎ 12:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote this with ChatGPT, didn't you? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Clarence Railway. The two keep !votes have failed to show that this is treated significantly in independent reliable secondary sources. I see a claim that "it's got coverage in quite a few books and articles." but at AfD we need to examine the sources and none have been presented, and I don't see any in searches. I do note that, since the AfD notice was added, two sources were added to the page. These are [7] a website for local history (disused) railway enthusiasts, which names the contributer but is unclear on its sources and editorial oversight. I would consider whether it is essentialy a WP:SPS but since the mention of Demon Bridge is passing, there is no need to consider that one further. The other new source is [8] which tells us: Two new stations, Simpasture and Demons Bridge, were opened on the former Clarence Railway. Again a passing mention. Sources need to contain significant coverage sufficient that an article on the subject can be written. These don't, none others have been found. This should be deleted, but the redirect is an acceptable ATD as it is a disused station on that railway. Clarence Railway is the appropriate page to mention this station. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

British Rail Eastern Region departmental locomotives

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

Wholly unsourced article since 2009 Danners430 (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Danners430 (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Danners430, were you aware that there isn't actually a requirement in any policy or guideline to cite sources? Our rule is that a subject can qualify for a separate article if sources exist in the real world, even if none are cited in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am aware. However, if you continue reading through that guideline, you’ll find more info - specifically regarding whether editors can find sources elsewhere. I’ve done a search through sources that I know of, and through search engines, and can’t find any sources whatsoever. As per that guideline, that seriously casts into question the notability of the article. Danners430 (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is contextless data with no indication of importance or discussion as a group in secondary sources; as such, it fails WP:NLIST. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found a book source which I think is enough to establish the topic's notability. Smith, Paul; Smith, Shirley (2014). British Rail departmental locomotives 1948-1968 : includes depots and stabling points. Hersham: Ian Allan Publishing. p. 96. ISBN 978-0-7110-3800-4. OCLC 897871236. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NLIST. These statistics are not given any context or meaning. Eastmain above fails to distinguish between departmental locomotives as a whole (we already have British Rail departmental locomotives) and eastern region departmental locomotives. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to Merge with British Rail departmental locomotives in the interest of developing a consensus. I'd rather we have one of these list articles than three, that's for sure. There is no reason I can see to have separate list articles when one will do. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – there is a whole chapter devoted to this subject in volume 10A of Locomotives of the LNER. I have added this source as a reference to the article, along with one for each main section. I don't mind expanding it to one citation for each loco, but it a fair amount of work, and it would be a waste of my time is the article is deleted...

The source also states the location the locos were used at.

This is also part of a series of three articles – the second covers the Southern Region and the third every other region. — Iain Bell (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need a series? These are just lists, and British Rail departmental locomotives could easily hold the entire contents of this article if people think it's worth including in the encyclopedia. Splitting them up seems arbitrary and not particularly helpful. We don't need three articles where one would do. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - First and foremost, I concur with Eastmain that sources exist to demonstrate notability, and two of these sources have been integrated into the article as of time of nomination. By definition, GNG is satisfied. Being said, looking at WP:NVEHICLE, this subject falls somewhere between the "type" and "subtype" categories in my view, and leans towards the "subtype" classification, falling under the "type" of British Rail departmental locomotives. Beyond functioning as a quasi-"list of" article, prose in this article focus predominantly on the history and numbering structure, which would substantively improve British Rail departmental locomotives. Ergo, I !vote that the article be merged and redirected to a subsection of that article. Ultimately, I will also cite ease of navigation as a factor to consider here. The linking between these articles, especially without the 'British railway locomotives and miscellany, 1948 to present' navbox on some mobile platforms, makes information unnecessarily segmented across articles. Condensing and combining content here seems the best course of action. Bgv. (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are the two sources enough to establish notability? Are there more sources we are missing?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect: Although this information is sourced now, I don't think there is much point treating the Eastern region in a separate article (same for SR departmental locomotives, as far as I'm concerned.) — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 16:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and I have just proposed a merge of SR departmental locomotives into the main article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into British Rail departmental locomotives. A good compromise for this AfD. gidonb (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. While Thryduulf found some sources, they are almost alone in believing that these sources warrant keeping or merging the article. Based on our policies and guidelines, the "delete" arguments are not only more numerous but also stronger: Thryduulf's sources are scattered bits and pieces of mostly primary sources, not the kind of material we generally admit establishes notability.

While a merger would normally be a possible ATD in such a case, in this instance neither the few lines of prose nor the data in the infobox are cited, and as such, nothing appears to be mergeable at present. If better sourcing for the existing content is found later, this can be restored via WP:REFUND for merging. But it might be easier to add some new content from scratch based on what sourcing has been found. Sandstein 19:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail DHP1

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

Wholly unsourced article since 2009 Danners430 (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: without sources. Nothing came up on Google. RolandSimon (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Danners430 (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There just isn't anything written about this that I can find [9], a photo there, and [10], a magazine that won't open for me... I'd maybe merge this into the list of British locomotives, but it's unsourced regardless. I mean, the information came from somewhere, but we don't have a source identified... Oaktree b (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find any evidence of SIGCOV, and no suitable redirect target seems to exist. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unfortunately, unless offline sourcing exists (which wouldn't surprise me). I found a couple of sources that were neither in-depth nor reliable which suggest that British Rail Class 17 (on which it was based) would make an appropriate merge target if we can verify the information. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge British Rail Class 17 or Clayton Equipment Company are the obvious places to look for a mention, but there isn't any there (the latter has a see also, the first has nothing). It's mentioned in the table at List of British Rail modern traction locomotive classes#Builders' demonstrators so that might also be a suitable merge target. Some more googling has found some things that prove existence and verify some of what is in the article:
  - [11] a primary sources, but it verifies it was a "Prototype 1500HP BoBo Diesel Hydraulic", the drawing contains a copyright date which might be useful but I can't read it.
  - [12] indicates that there is a lot more information available from the manufacturer, but being primary that would all speak to verifiability not notability.
  - [13] This copy of a Railways Illustrated article (see PDF page 3) has a small amount of information, and presumably counts as a secondary source.
  - [14] A review of this book indicates that it includes information about the DHP1, but as I don't have a copy I can't say too much.
  - [15] This forum post has some quotes from an article in Classic Diesels and Electrics magazine issue 3 (December 1997/January 1998) described elsewhere as "Major", it also notes that there was at least a drawing in Modern Locomotives Illustrated No 174. I've not been able to find either magazine online. However, combined with the number of models of it that exist, I'm satisified that notability is demonstrated. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  After thinking about this a bit more, I now think that Clayton Equipment Company would be the best place to merge this to as most of the sources frame it in the context the manufacturer, the relationship to Class 17 is limited and not only does the list article not really having anywhere great to put a section of prose it feels a bit undue to have that much detail about an individual entry. As for whether to merge or keep as a stand-alone article, I might be leaning towards the former but I'd not describe either as a clear preference at this point. Thryduulf (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is basically unverifiable. Even if it were conclusively proven to exist it would only merit a brief mention within the Class 17 article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any serious doubt that this existed and was based on the Class 17. I haven't found a reliable source that states this but the variety and nature of the unreliable ones I've found leaves me in no doubt. However we do need reliable sources, and while I would be surprised if such didn't exist they haven't been found yet. Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this conclusively exists, a redirect wouldn't hurt, but the question is where do you redirect it to? I don't think this is mentioned in any other article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also my newer comment above, but there is a mention at List of British Rail modern traction locomotive classes#Builders' demonstrators. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This looks like a clear delete but additional sources were brought to the discussion yesterday and it would be nice to have them assessed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not a single source provided to support the locomotive's existence. ADifferentMan (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a picture of it above in my link, but that's not helping notability. It exists. Oaktree b (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ADifferentMan I provided 5 sources above that prove it exists. It's less clear whether it is notable enough for a stand-alone article, but it's not a slam-dunk no (or yes) and existence is not in doubt. Thryduulf (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Assessment of the additional sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I won't mark this as a vote, because I opened this discussion... going by the lack of engagement alone, I would be inclined to suggest this be closed as a Delete or Merge (as proposed by Thryduulf). We can't keep relisting the AFD forever... Danners430 (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thryduulf's digging. It also has some coverage in Modern Railways of its time.

I wouldn't merge to the class 17 article because, despite the maker and cab similarities, they're very different locos. The engines are different (and there are twice as many) and the bogies are too, as the hydraulic has mechanical final drives rather than traction motors. Mostly the DHP1 would probably have avoided the 17's best known feature, its awful unreliability. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of preserved Boeing aircraft

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

It duplicates the content on the main article pages. (e.g. Boeing 707) Dedicated aircraft on display articles are only created for single types when the list becomes too long for the main article. The list also includes pictures, which runs counter to the WikiProject:Aviation style guide.

Subsequent to the creation of this AfD, I discovered there is an additional article created by the same user at: List of preserved McDonnell Douglas aircraft. –Noha307 (talk) 04:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Aviation, Transportation, Lists, and Virginia. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The linked "No images should be included in lists of aircraft, this is not what lists are for." is one of the strangest things I've seen here. All of my lists include pictures and this prohibition makes no sense, why would this be here? What lists does this refer to specifically? I can imagine for certain large lists you wouldn't want excessive pictures that look similar and add little, but I don't see a need to apply that here; that is not a justification for deletion. Where you're talking about individual aircraft that are preserved and on display for people to see, showing everyone here who can't go to all these museums what they look like is a great idea! While I agree that duplication with the bullet-point lists in the main article is not great, I think a list that can include additional details like useful pictures – or at least be a central navigation page – can be reasonable. Keep Reywas92^Talk 17:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of my lists include pictures and this prohibition makes no sense, why would this be here?

It increases the file size of the page. However, it also unnecessarily increases the height of each row of the table and reduces the width of the other cells, which makes the table longer and the legibility of information more difficult as the text is wrapped onto multiple lines. However, these are my own reasons. There's a bit more in a section on the talk page of the style guide.

It's worth noting that a number of the images don't show the aircraft on display, but in service, which is not appropriate or useful for a list of this type.

that is not a justification for deletion

Agreed. In and of itself, it is not a justification for deletion. However, it is something that adds weight against it. –Noha307 (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any size concerns here, nor issues with the length of the table or column/text width. Even if the retired craft on display is preferred, I would not remove images of service. Reywas92^Talk 01:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this list appears to be missing the 707 Air Force One as noted at Air Force One#Boeing 707s and entry to jet age. No opinion on whether this should be kept or not, but that seems a strange omission. Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nom and Reywas95 both make valid points. That said, the concerns with the article do not warrant deletion. Rather, improvements are welcome. In this respect, I wonder if it would be possible to create shared sections (not sure on the WP jargon) that can both fit into the model articles and into this article. gidonb (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem is that it duplicates information that already exists. There's no need for a separate article listing preserved aircraft unless they are too long for the main article and if that is the case, then it should be broken down by airplane model, not manufacturer. You could argue WP:MERGE into main articles or separate into dedicated articles each models instead of deleting it. However, in the latter case a) certain aircraft would not have sufficient numbers of entries for a dedicated article and b) that would make the manufacturer just a list of links that could be replaced by a category. –Noha307 (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had already identified and addressed this problem in my opinion above. Others have addressed it as well. gidonb (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain in a bit more detail what you meant by "shared sections"? Do you mean some sort of transcluded template? Noha307 (talk) 04:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That would be it. gidonb (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not warrant deletion I guarantee to you. Thats why I also voted my vote as a keep. Airbus A320-100 (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split to individual aircraft types. These manufacturer-based lists are problematic because they either end up duplicating the information in the article on the type, or they are incomplete because they omit types that have only a couple of surviving examples which are adequately covered on the main article on the type. It looks like the anonymous editor creating these manufacturer-based lists was also recently involved in a bad-faith PROD of an aircraft type article. It would be good for the folks involved in creating and maintaining lists of preserved aircraft could generate some consensus on thesholds of when to split from type articles, and also agree not to create manufacturer lists like this one. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why does the list only cover Boeing 7x7's? Boeing made many other aircraft types, so shouldn't they be covered in the list is kept? Mjroots (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah. This arbitrariness is another argument against these manufacturer-based lists IMHO. --Rlandmann (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've updated the article to be based on other aircraft Boeing series aircraft, not just 7x7's 220.244.141.72 (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per @Reywas92 and @gidonb 220.244.141.72 (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per @220.244.141.72, @Reywas92 and @gidonb Airbus A320-100 (talk) 10:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a few sources to justify WP:LISTN through a quick google search. From the nom's perspective, I can understand how the article as written was focusing on the 707's. But AfD is not cleanup. Conyo14 (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 01:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets LISTN and works better as a collection rather than splitting into separate lists for each aircraft series/type. Sounder Bruce 05:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Reywas92. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stations

Hibiscus Coast busway station

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

Fails GNG, no SIGCOV exists for these bus stations on their own. Just press releases and routine news reports of events occurring there. I propose merging to Northern Busway, Auckland I am also nominating the following related pages

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural oppose I don't think it was a good idea to bundle this nomination. At the very least, Constellation Station is notable; there's enough coverage to bring it over the GNG line. I therefore have to oppose this in its entirety. Schwede 66 07:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you can provide sigcov I'll withdraw Constellation. I couldn't find anything with a search. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Northern Busway, Auckland per lack of significant coverage. If the issue of notability can be determined for individual stations then the articles can be reassessed. Ajf773 (talk) 10:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled nominations like this require more participation than this one has had so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 30 June 2024 (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