Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation

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

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

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

Purge page cache

watch

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

2002 Africa One Antonov An-26 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Minor incident, gear collapses are common, also no major injuries or fatalities that add notability to it. Very few sources cover it, and the article is poorly written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SignorPignolini (talk • contribs) 17:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT. A search yields no news coverage, no significant coverage, no in-depth coverage and no secondary sources. Perhaps the fact that it did result in some lasting effects could make it notable, as noted in the article, but other than that, it practically fails every other policy and guideline as noted above and I don't think this would justify a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 04:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Gambier Rail Trail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't think this article meets our notability criteria. It only cites external links to primary sources and not reliable, secondary sources. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 10:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 10:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Mount Gambier railway line. Mccapra (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Mount Gambier railway line. Bduke (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shamus Liptrot Cycling Trail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't think this article meets our notability criteria. It only cites external links to primary sources and not reliable, secondary sources. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 10:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 10:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the relevant information to Hamley Bridge–Gladstone railway line, preferably with at least one secondary source. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kadono Jūkurō (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reviewed during New Page Patrol. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. Coverage and content is just very limited CV/Resume type material. Regarding potential SNG, his largets thing was being Chairman of the Okura Gumi corporation. North8000 (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Transportation, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I don't find coverage in Jstage (an index of Japanese journals) for a railway engineer. There is some coverage about a lighting/electrical engineer [1], none seem to be about this person. Coverage in the article is only one source, which isn't enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There are, in fact, several links discussing this person at the link you gave, although I didn't look through all of them: p. 12 of this one, p. 74 of this one. These were the first ones that came up when I switched the search to focus on economic history. Dekimasuよ! 00:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The company that he led for 20 years, now Taisei Corporation, constructed Tokyo's first subway line and Frank Lloyd Wright's New Imperial Hotel in the middle of his tenure, which is why his name mostly comes up in searches on railway history and international tourism. There are this and this and several other biographies in books related to Keio online, quite a bit of discussion of his relationship with subway/railway development in Tokyo in this book and this book, notes on the relationship between Japanese and American baseball (and the national railway baseball team) in this book, and somewhat passing mention of his arguments on the relationship between steel and the army here. I don't really feel the article itself is in such bad condition. Dekimasuよ! 00:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dekimasu's sources and analysis. --Cavarrone 05:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Dekimasu’s sources - there seems to be a lot of stuff out there about him which prove notability, as you’d expect from the leader of a major corporation during a historically important period of development. Given that the standard for notability is that sources exist in the world, NOT that they are currently included in the article as written, this seems to be an obvious keep, with room for future editors to work to improve the article later using those available sources. Absurdum4242 (talk) 06:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While Kadono has received attention from a few intellectuals so far, he has been honored by the Chilean government for his commitment to construction. It's also a rare testimony to Chile–Japan relations in the first half of the 20th century as well. --JOT news (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep subject looks notable based on @Dekimasu’s source analysis. Mysecretgarden (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMOCA 60 Initiative Coeur 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There is no WP:SIGCOV of this sailboat and thus it fails WP:GNG. PROD was contested. Would support redirection to IMOCA 60. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Transportation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, its common practice that every IMOCA 60 has its own page, like the french wikipedia (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiatives-C%C5%93ur_4). The importance is given by the Vendée Globe starting only in about two months. Give me some time to bring the article up to speed. V.Glas (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@V.Glas You created the page This page was created in November 2023 and it has had no independent, reliable, secondary sources since then. That seems like plenty of time to find them and "bring the article up to speed." (I don't believe they exist, since I searched for them WP:BEFORE nominating.) As for your argument that "it's common practice," that's an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument that does not rely on any actual guidelines, and we follow English Wikipedia guidelines here. What is your policy-based reason for keeping this article? One alternative, if you believe sources will be available after the Vendee Globe, is to draftify this article, which is the appropriate place for it if you're still working on finding sources. Let me know what you think. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I did not create the page. That was @Yachty4000. If you are looking for sources or notability, take the French article as reference. I already translated and added some parts. V.Glas (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my misstatement and have struck it above. Regardless there is now a week for sufficient sources to be identified. As I said, I didn’t find any that fit the bill (and I looked in French as well). But if you find some and they do meet the standards of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS I will withdraw the nomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Badakhshan Dassault Falcon 10 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, only primary sources exist on the event with no secondary sources existing on the event. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the crash. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Afghanistan. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete above reason Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 11:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into and create Dassault Falcon 10 Accidents and incidents category. Lolzer3k 17:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, I don't think that the accidents or incidents involving the Dassault Falcon 10 are a notable aspect of the aircraft, which might be a reason why the section wasn't created. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 02:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tramwaje Śląskie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article about a transport company tagged for notability for eleven months. Bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Transportation, and Poland. Mccapra (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't see any notability issue in the article. State-owned company running public transportation is pretty legit article subject. --Soman (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: if notability can't be established, obvious redirect or merge target would be Silesian Interurbans -> WP:ATD. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LCE (automobile) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unable to find any sources supplying notability. Most sources I've found that even mention it, mention it trivially. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 15:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 15:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, Transportation, and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about adding it to the Cutting page since it's a successor company? It is relevant in Brass Era automobile discussions.

Human-potato hybrid (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroflot Flight 112 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: A search reveals that there exists no (significant) news coverage of the event, no secondary sources, no in-depth coverage, no (sustained) continued coverage, no demonstrated lasting effects and no long-term impact on a significant region of the world that would make this event notable enough for a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Turkmenistan. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Recent discussion suggests one of the two sources listed to be generally unreliable. Aviationwikiflight's discussion of the lack of secondary sources, coverage, and impact only reinforce this editor's position. Jtwhetten (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for now. There seems to be 2 glaring problems here: effects and sources. As for effects, it is well known that the USSR covered up many aviation and aerospace disasters, not to mention Aeroflot planes were crashing what seemed to be every week, so it doesn't seem that important. However, the fact that it is the deadliest passenger aviation crash in Turkmenistan seems relevant enough to me to warrant the page staying. As for sources, the crash is listed on aircrashinfo, a popular aggregate source for plane crashes, and they helpfully list all of their sources where they got the crash info. As it turns out, the 2 sources cited in the article do not pop up in this reference list, so information about this crash must be somewhere in aircrashinfo's references. Thankfully, I found a few that cover this time period and are available in my university's library, so if I get the time I'm more than willing to see if I can find any more relevant information from a real source. If I hit a dead end, it's probably better for this to get deleted. But in the meantime, I'm willing to give it a shot. SouthernDude297 (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I seriously doubt the sources listed would provide significant coverage of the event beyond a mere trivial passing mention. Per WP:GNG, sources should be secondary, meaning that the sources must provide analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis. If the sources do, I would be inclined to reconsider the nomination, but for now, you seem to be arguing that currently, the event isn't notable. And just because "Flight ___" was the deadliest in x country doesn't mean it should warrant a stand-alone article, unless it can meet the necessary requirements to have a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 06:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Redirect to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1960s. Incident is sufficiently covered there. Meltdown627 (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroflot Flight 31 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: A search reveals that there exists no (significant) news coverage of the event, no secondary sources, no in-depth coverage, no continued coverage, no demonstrated lasting effects and no long-term impact on a significant region of the world that would make this event notable enough for a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Russia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:N. There are no independent, reliable sources of information about this crash. The ASN source cites airdisaster.ru as its source of information, airdisaster.ru does not cite any sources itself and has been the topic of a past discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_446#airdisaster.ru. Most of the currently uncited material in the article is a close paraphrase of the limited information that appears on airdisaster.ru, and the baaa-acro.com source is a WP:SPS. I've spent some time trying to find even a brief mention of this accident in reliable sources, and have failed. While Wikipedia's notability guideline is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the current state of sourcing in an article, the policy does state that information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Redirect to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1950s. Incident is sufficiently covered there. Once suitable sources are found, it can be made a standalone article. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Soviet aviation task force/Notability.Meltdown627 (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grange Road, Adelaide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GEOROAD. Most of the references are simply maps like https://location.sa.gov.au/ . LibStar (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article about a major arterial road in western Adelaide. It is also part of a set of Adelaide roads. The article has existed for over six years with no concern. Scott Davis ^Talk

"The article has existed for over six years with no concern" is not an argument for keeping. LibStar (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. Bduke (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  See WP:PERX. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment 2 sources were added since nomination, however I don't see evidence of third party coverage to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article as per norm Tesleemah (talk) 03:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Enough sources exist to meet GEOROAD. ([2][3][4]) GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I will assume 1 and 3 are indepth as they are behind a paywall. Source 2 above is a 1 line mention of Grange Road. LibStar (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ayten Sokak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article says the street is notable but it has no sources and there is no Turkish article Chidgk1 (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroflot Flight 34 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: There exists no (significant) news coverage of the event, no secondary sources, no in-depth coverage, no continued coverage, no demonstrated lasting effects and no long-term impact on a significant region of the world that would make this event notable enough for a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Georgia (country). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1940s or to List of accidents and incidents involving the DC-3 in 1947, since there are nearly zero sources about the accident. SignorPignolini

(talk) 13:43 UTC, 15 September 2024 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SignorPignolini (talk • contribs) 13:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:N. The Soviet Union was notoriously tight-lipped about aviation accidents that occurred in that era, and many domestic accidents were never widely reported. This article is based entirely on what appears on the airdisaster.ru website, which was briefly discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_446#airdisaster.ru a couple of months ago. I found that discussion by searching for such a discussion, as my gut feeling was already telling me that this isn't a reliable source, and the "sources of information" field on the entry on that site has been left blank. I've spent some time trying to find even a brief mention of this accident in reliable sources, and have failed. While Wikipedia's notability guideline is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the current state of sourcing in an article, the policy does state that information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actil railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Despite the name, this wasn't an actual public train station. From the article: "Due to the line being for industrial purposes, it never really carried actual passenger train services apart from some trains that were scheduled for the workers" although this isn't cited to anything. The existing sources are useless; one is a single word mention that doesn't even support the content it is cited to, and the other is a YouTube video. A basic BEFORE search did not turn up anything promising. At best, this could be redirected to Finsbury railway line. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and Australia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Finsbury railway line per nom. A search for sources shows that the ACTIL factory/company may be notable [5][6], but the station is not. Toadspike [Talk] 13:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for the Redirect suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1952 Aeroflot Ilyushin Il-12 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: There exists no (significant) news coverage of the event, no secondary sources, no in-depth coverage, no continued coverage, no demonstrated lasting effects and no long-term impact on a significant region of the world that would make this event notable enough for a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Russia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:N. The Soviet Union was notoriously tight-lipped about aviation accidents that occurred in that era, and many domestic accidents were never widely reported. This article is based primarily on what appears on the airdisaster.ru website, which was briefly discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_446#airdisaster.ru a couple of months ago. I found that discussion by searching for such a discussion, as my gut feeling was already telling me that this isn't a reliable source, and the "sources of information" field on the entry on that site has been left blank. I've spent some time trying to find even a brief mention of this accident in reliable sources, and have failed. While Wikipedia's notability guideline is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the current state of sourcing in an article, the policy does state that information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge for now to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1950s. Incident is sufficiently covered there. Once suitable sources are found, it can be made a standalone article. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Soviet aviation task force/Notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meltdown627 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete: does seem notable as an accident causing several fatalities, I just can't find any sources on it besides ASN and other accident databases. SirMemeGod  19:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Provincial road 34-12 (Turkey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unsourced and only 7 km long so does not deserve own article - no objection if anyone merges it Chidgk1 (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If you are suggesting a Merge or Redirect, please provide a link to the suggested target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Lakana presents this term as representing a specific type of watercraft (an outrigger canoe) with a specific type of rig (the "downwind" mastless rig that is supported between two sprits). This specific type of craft does exist – it is shown in the photo illustrating the article. However, in Malagasy, as far as I can determine, the word "Lakana" is any type of canoe, with or without outriggers, with or without a sailing rig, and certainly not confined to just one type of sailing rig. This is clear from the reference in the article
Hornell, James (1920). "67. The Common Origin of the Outrigger Canoes of Madagascar and East Africa". Man. 20: 134–139. doi:10.2307/2839454. Retrieved 5 September 2024.
which has a translation provided by a colonial administrator confirming that "lakana" is not a specific type of canoe, but a canoe (or boat) in general. Hornell is still seen as a useful authority on the ethnography of sailing craft in the areas in which he worked. If the word applied to a particular hull and rig combination, he would have picked up on this.

I have asked for help on the Wikiproject Madagascar[7] with no result. Therefore, I think we have to conclude that these concerns about the article are correct. If "lakana" is a much broader term than the article suggests, if we do not the name of the type of craft that the article describes (I can find no source that makes this clear), then the only option is to delete the article as unsupported by sources.

In passing, it is worth saying that I have come to the conclusion that though the subject of traditional sailing craft in Madagascar would make a very interesting (to me) article on Wikipedia, there simply are not sufficient sources to do the subject justice. This is after some considerable searching. (It would be great to be proved wrong in this.) ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 13:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this is the second AfD nomination for Lakana, but the first related to a company not a type of boat. TSventon (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, History, Transportation, and Africa. Skynxnex (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. In terms of:

• Scope. To my read, the article doesn't state (at least not directly as interpreted by the nominator) that the article "presents this term as representing a specific type of watercraft (an outrigger canoe [of Madagascar]) with a specific type of rig". Rather it states (as would appear to be supported by Hornell (1920; p.138) and Richardson (1887; p.345)) that the Lakana is (yes) a specific type of watercraft. Being an outrigger canoe. That is "dug out". Rather than "built". IE: A "specific type of watercraft (a dugout outrigger canoe [of Madagascar])". Which is supported by Richardson in particular. Yes, the article mentions different types of rigging. But I don't read it as stating that the rigging type is part of the definition/classification. If that is unclear, I would suggest that we clarify or change the text. Rather than delete the article.
• Sources. To my mind, there are sufficient sources (including the two above) to support some text about the subject. Being a type of dugout outrigger traditionally used in Madagascar. Even if just as a sub-set / sub-section of the Pirogue article. Which appears to cover the "generic" class of small dugout canoe. Globally. With a redirect left behind. To a subsection on the Madagascan type.
• Suggested action. If the issues with the title are scope (including clarity of the text) or sources (reflecting them), I'm not sure that outright deletion is the right way to go. Deletion isn't cleanup. At the very least, a merge/redirect seems like the way to go. To Pirogue. Leaving out any "questionable" or potentially confusing text.

My 2x cents at any rate. Guliolopez (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment.

• Translation: The key issue is whether Lakana is a term for "outrigger canoes which are based on a dugout hull" or if it applies to "any dugout canoe". The two sources discussed above seem to give the definition of an unqualified "dugout canoe". At present the article is solely about the outrigger version. To assist in decision-making on the meaning, see this video[8] with the caption "Miandry ny lakana miampita" which google translates as "The boat is waiting to cross". We can see there is no outrigger. (Whilst OR is not allowed for article content, there is no prohibition on using it to help understand a subject.) The boat in the video is very different from the seagoing outrigger canoes.
• What makes this more difficult is the knowledge that the Vezo make use of outrigger canoes with a distinctive common spritsail rig (as defined by Edwin Doran [9], pg 40, fig 21, drawing B) that is not described, in Madagascar, by Hornell or anyone else. (Hornell describes this rig in the neighbouring Comoro Islands[10]) A Vezo boat is the one illustrating the Pirogue article – but there is no RS that identifies the rig type. And, of course, Commons has no obligation for its descriptions of pictures to be supported by an RS. This might contribute to the impetus for deletion in this editor's mind (as proposer), as there is a very common class of Madagascan dugout outrigger canoe that is totally undescribed in RSs, so making the subject incomplete. (See youtube[11] for these Vezo craft under sail, which is something that most believe Hornell never saw). All I have to back this thought up is some private correspondence with a researcher on Austronesian rigs – so essentially WP:OR.
• If I understand User:Guliolopez correctly, their suggestion would mean a complete rewrite of the article to fit the sources and then merge it into Pirogue. That would fit with the intent behind the proposal: that we do not really have enough sourced material for an article on the Lakana on its own. Have I got this correct? ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Hi ThoughtIdRetired. RE: "suggestion would mean a complete rewrite of the article to fit the sources and then merge it into Pirogue". Effectively, yes, I think that's probably the most appropriate outcome. Retain the title. As a redirect. And summarise and merge the content/text (about the Lakana being a form of Pirogue/dugout traditionally associated with Madagascar) into the Pirogue article. Guliolopez (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. (Note: prior to the AfD nomination, I had suggested to the nominator that they put this up for deletion.) My take on the current sources etc. is that none of them indicate that the lakana is anything other than the Malagasy for a canoe. My interpretation of each source etc. below:
  • "The lateen rig allows a lakana to sail closer to the wind, so giving some windward performance.[1]”
    • My interpretation: Doesn't indicate that the lakana is something different.
  • "The boat is often referred to by the general French term "pirogue", which can include boats with no outriggers.[2]"
    • My interpretation: “general French term” suggests there's nothing special about the lakana.
  • “The technology was adapted in neighboring East Africa, like the Tanzanian ngalawa and the Fulani laana.[3][4]”
    • My interpretation: Can't access these sources, but the Wikipedia wording suggests that there are similar craft elsewhere - i.e. there's nothing peculiar to Madagascar about these.
  • “some locals prefer the Hazomalany wood (Hazomalania voyronii of the family of Hernandiaceae).[5]”
    • My interpretation: Doesn't indicate that the lakana is something different.
  • Hornell, James (September 1920). “The Common Origin of the Outrigger Canoes of Madagascar and East Africa”
    • My interpretation: Only indicates that “lakana” is simply the Malagasy for “canoe”.
  • Richardson, J (December 1887). “The Affinities Of Malagasy With The Melanesian Languages”
    • My interpretation: Only indicates that “lakana” is simply the Malagasy for “canoe”.
  • “An Austronesian square-sail is more common (e.g. in Ambaro Bay).[a]”
    • My interpretation: Doesn't indicate that the lakana is something different.

--A bit iffy (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does not qualify for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as there is very little material in this article that can be merged into Pirogue. On going through this in detail, there are perhaps three sentences to add to Pirogue from this article. (The tree species used for the sailing versions, the "lakana" is the Malagasy for pirogue, and that this word applies to dug out canoes, with or without outriggers and with various rigs. We cannot say more as the sailing rigs are incompletely described by sources.) Lakana would just remain as a redirect. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stiking your duplicate vote. Your nomination statement is your Delete vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Line (New York) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Originally a redirect to BMT Broadway Line, this page got turned into an incomplete disambiguation page (WP:INCDAB) listing two more New Yorker yellow lines that neither mention "yellow" in the article body nor are listed on the Yellow Line dab page (i.e. unlikely search target?). Since INCDAB pages aren't ideal, I see the following solutions for this particular page:

1. Upmerge all entries to Yellow Line and redirect to Yellow Line {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}
2. Redirect back to the original BMT Broadway Line target, maybe add hatnotes
3. Delete to avoid confusion over dab-worthiness
4. Keep and accept this INCDAB

Whatever the result, I'd do the same for the 6 other NY color line INCDABs (not part of this AFD). – sgeureka ^t•c 14:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: Page/Redirect were originally created by now-blocked editor, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive357#Dozens_upon_dozens_of_questionable_redirects_created_by_now-blocked_user. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Disambiguations, and New York. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as none of the entries on the page are actually "yellow lines"; the only commonality between them is that their emblem is colored yellow. (I would also !vote to delete the other incomplete disambiguations, but they weren't nominated here.) – Epicgenius (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Visakhapatnam Metro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Never actually took implementation stages. Politician dream. WP:TOOSOON. No developments from a very long time. Also this article says no metro to Visakhapatnam.- https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/politics/040821/no-vizag-vijayawada-metro-rail-for-now.html. Thewikizoomer (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of speculations within the article as well. Thewikizoomer (talk) 05:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Andhra Pradesh. Shellwood (talk) 09:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vijayawada Metro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Never actually took implementation stages. Politician dream. WP:TOOSOON. No developments from a very long time. Thewikizoomer (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also this article says no metro to Vijayawada. Thewikizoomer (talk) 05:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of speculations within the article as well. Thewikizoomer (talk) 05:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Andhra Pradesh. Shellwood (talk) 09:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Initially PRODed by me, for the following reason:

In addition to the existing relying on a single source and vagueness issues (likely due to translation), the information in the article could easily be included onto the existing articles – DIN 1451, Austria (typeface), Tern (typeface) and Road signs in Austria – with the provision of sources, weakening the article's basis.

Deletion was objected, a merged was proposed instead. However, it is not possible to redirect one article to 3 others. Created a topic at WikiProject Typography over 4 months ago with no response. The article has no notability on its own, and is poorly written/explained. EthanL13 | talk 22:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Transportation, and Austria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is covered in DIN 1451 in more detail than is here. Nothing in that article gives me the impression that a separate article on DIN 1451 Engschrift would be needed. I did search and Engschrift is always defined together with DIN 1451. Lamona (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to DIN 1451, by condensing the Austria section into a single sentence and placing it under DIN_1451#Usage_examples (this is sourced - the article's only source refers to this). There is certainly no justification for a standalone article, as the target article provides better coverage for every other aspect. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure if I agree with a merge, since Engschrift (German for "narrow font/script") isn't strictly unique to DIN 1451. EthanL13 | talk 14:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is in this case, as the article makes clear. The term should lead the reader somewhere. Do you have more general redirect targets in mind? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article is much to go by – it can't even stick to its own subject in the lead. If it were possible, a disambiguation page (with DIN 1451 as its primary article) would be ideal, with links to Austria (typeface), Tern (typeface) and FE-Schrift. Just an idea, not sure if it's possible. EthanL13 | talk 09:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a disambiguation would be the way to go, given the several different types where the term is accepted as a variant, and the fact that it also represents the original German term for shorthand [12]. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Railway stations in Karaikudi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This might work better as a category instead of a page. Charlie (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Lists, and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to Karaikudi#Transport. Per WP:CLN lists and categories are complementary, and this list has much more information than a category could offer. The nominator gives no reason why they think a category might be better, and I can't think of any. The article could be improved, but that's not a reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 09:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Karaikudi#Transport would be a good idea. The article is a bit short to stand on its own, but its contents could easily be integrated with the Karaikudi Transport page. TH1980 (talk) 02:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actil railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Despite the name, this wasn't an actual public train station. From the article: "Due to the line being for industrial purposes, it never really carried actual passenger train services apart from some trains that were scheduled for the workers" although this isn't cited to anything. The existing sources are useless; one is a single word mention that doesn't even support the content it is cited to, and the other is a YouTube video. A basic BEFORE search did not turn up anything promising. At best, this could be redirected to Finsbury railway line. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and Australia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Finsbury railway line per nom. A search for sources shows that the ACTIL factory/company may be notable [13][14], but the station is not. Toadspike [Talk] 13:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for the Redirect suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Railway stations in Karaikudi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This might work better as a category instead of a page. Charlie (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Lists, and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to Karaikudi#Transport. Per WP:CLN lists and categories are complementary, and this list has much more information than a category could offer. The nominator gives no reason why they think a category might be better, and I can't think of any. The article could be improved, but that's not a reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 09:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Karaikudi#Transport would be a good idea. The article is a bit short to stand on its own, but its contents could easily be integrated with the Karaikudi Transport page. TH1980 (talk) 02:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None at present

None at present

None at present

None at present

None at present

None at present

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