Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

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

Transportation

U.S. Xpress

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

Doesn't seem to meet GNG or NCORP. There was no SIGCOV after Googling, just more press releases and WP:ROUTINE. BuySomeApples (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Kenya bus crash

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events (including most .. accidents ..) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Kenya. XYZ1233212 (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. Not every accident is worthy of an encyclopedia article, even if it was newsworthy at the time. Ira Leviton (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The high amount of casualties makes this an abnormal crash that warrants an article for the accident. Nintenga (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Barely passes the minimum number of dead in List of traffic collisions (2000–present). Borgenland (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. It is true that there was loss of lives, but this does not meet the threshold for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Road crashes of this nature happen always. My condolences to the families of those who lost loved ones and quick recovery to the injured. Patre23 (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donnybrook Road

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

The article doesn't demonstrate the notability of this road. One source is Google Maps, and the other is from the local MP. Searching online I couldn't find much to indicate that this road is notable enough for an article. – numbermaniac 07:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There’s nothing that stands out about Donnybrook Road beyond a few 2025 local announcements of an infrastructure upgrade in response to traffic congestion. Such works and funding commitments are routine occurrences (WP:ROUTINE). Fails WP:GEOLAND. HerBauhaus (talk) 09:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zongshen 250 GS

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

Fails WP:GNG. I couldn't find sufficient sourcing to establish notability. The best I could find was [1]. Golem08 (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Transportation. Golem08 (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 San Diego Cessna 414 crash

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events (including most .. accidents ..) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Aviation. XYZ1233212 (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, United States of America, and California. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to San Diego International Airport#Accidents and incidents, where this is already, and appropriately, covered. Otherwise WP:TOOSOON at best. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. - WP:NOTNEWS user@wikipedia:~$MSWDEV(talk) 04:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Redirect. Redirect as per The Bushranger. Zycagan (talk) 11:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC) - WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ~SG 5536B 23:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: This is I think the third article of a recent aviation accident that has been swiftly nominated for deletion. I think a better alternative to this pattern would be for the creators of said articles to wait a bit of time for more sources to come out and then create an article if there is enough evidence of the crash being notable. For now though, a redirect to the relevant airport page will probably suffice. 11WB (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:EVENTCRIT#4. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Gerik bus crash

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events (including most .. accidents ..) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Malaysia. XYZ1233212 (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it is almost never clear the day of a traffic accident that it's going to be of long-term interest. Mangoe (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is an existing de facto consensus that bus accidents which involve a high number of casualties are sufficiently non-routine to meet meet Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA. For example, the community has decided in the past to feature at ITN bus incidents which, at the time they were posted (the day after the crash), were nearly factually identical to this one. The main page ITN notability standards are dramatically higher than the much lower WP:SIGCOV standard needed to pass WP:GNG - see e.g. 1 2 3 4 5; there are countless more examples. To be simultaneously deleting bus crash articles for failure to pass WP:GNG one day and then posting an identical crash on the Main Page the day after is inconsistency to the point of absurdity. For clarity, I am not presenting these as an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, but as evidence of the existing consensus on this point. I agree with that consensus: mass-casualty bus accidents strike me as non-routine and inherently enduringly notable based on the scale of loss of life, which will typically necessarily result in a subsequent investigation and posting of reform recommendations by an investigating agency. WP:GNG is also met in any event as there is SIGCOV. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 23:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, and the trend of late is to delete these articles. And it's not at all hard to find criticism of all of the front page feeds, which in any case are largely independent of the processes here. One could even argue that allowing events like this into ITN just encourages people to write articles on events that are of at best unknown notability. Either way I disagree that they have higher standards of notability. Mangoe (talk) 00:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the participants at the ITN discussion also opposed including the news [2] due to notability concerns. XYZ1233212 (talk) 06:07, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Direct announcements and calls to action from the prime minister and two national (not just local) officials, as well as the creation of a special (rather than routine) task force involving multiple agencies, suggests this is unusual and tentatively of lasting significance barely a day and a half later, far from a "routine kind of news event" in Malaysia. 9³ (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no indication that this event will have lasting significance. Notability is not based on death count or government reaction. It's based on secondary sourcing. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The argument for deletion here leans heavily on a rigid and overly literal reading of WP:NOTNEWS, conveniently ignoring that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but it is also not a graveyard for memory-holed tragedies either. This was not a fender-bender on a backroad. A mass-casualty bus crash that prompts national-level government response, dedicated task forces and widespread media coverage is not just another Tuesday in traffic. Calling this "routine" is either disingenuous or a failure to understand the scale of public impact in Malaysia or both. We have got folks citing "no long-term significance" barely 48 hours after the crash like they have been handed a crystal ball. If Wikipedia editors could determine the long-term historical relevance of an event before the ambulances have even left the scene, we would all be working for intelligence agencies instead of haggling over AfDs. And the suggestion that we should delete this just because it might encourage people to write about similar events? That is a thinly veiled gatekeeping argument dressed up as policy concern. Wikipedia is built by editors writing about what matters – and clearly, this matters. Multiple past ITN-featured bus crashes had near-identical profiles and those were deemed notable enough not just to exist but to be highlighted on the Main Page. You do not get to pretend that precedent does not exist just because it is inconvenient. Unless we are proposing Wikipedia pivot to become a collection of only 19th-century biographies and obscure crustaceans, this article deserves to stay. The only thing "routine" here is the predictable rush to delete important regional events under the false flag of "notability". Anne4321 (talk/contributions) 14:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ITN doesn't establish precedent for AfD, and the fact that other articles were or were not kept is not relevant to whether this one ought to be. Also, it doesn't take a crystal ball to know that a bus accident (however tragic, however much media attention it's getting in the immediate aftermath) is pretty unlikely to receive significant coverage in secondary sources in even the near future. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Technically true, and yet stunningly unhelpful. No one is claiming ITN is a formal precedent in policy. What is being pointed out is that the same community routinely finds near-identical incidents notable enough for the front page, which implies a de facto standard that does reflect how real-world editorial judgment works. If the same editors find this notable for the Main Page and then turn around and delete it the next day, we are not following policy, but we are speed running cognitive dissonance. As for the idea that it's "unlikely" this will receive significant secondary coverage in the future — first, that is speculation, which ironically contradicts the argument that we are speculating. Second, this crash already has multiple signals of notability that go beyond routine: direct intervention by the royalty and the prime minister, national-level statements and a multi-agency task force — all within 48 hours. That is the bureaucratic equivalent of setting off a flare gun screaming "this is important". Pretending this is just a standard accident is like calling a multi-alarm building fire just "a bit of smoke". Yes, the GNG is not automatically satisfied by government response, but when national leaders and structural responses kick in that fast and media coverage is both broad and substantive, it is a strong indicator that the article would not become a stubbed-out flash in the pan. At worst, it gets updated. At best, it contributes to long-term reporting on public safety, transport policy and systemic accountability — all legitimate encyclopedic angles. If the real concern here is that we are afraid Wikipedia might become too representative of global tragedy — and not just a Western-leaning collection of "acceptable" topics — then let us name that bias instead of hiding behind an overly narrow interpretation of "significant coverage". Anne4321 (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're reading subtext in my arguments that aren't there. I would be making the same argument if this were a bus crash in NYC that the governor/mayor set up a task force for. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Expand the article. Great achievement (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree. The obvious solution is not deletion, it is expansion. The article is not failing some moral test by existing in early form. This is exactly how coverage grows: a serious, non-routine event happens; it is documented; then it is expanded as investigations, media analysis and responses develop. Several users' repeated insistence that "lasting significance" must be visible immediately after the event misses the entire point of an evolving encyclopedia. That is not policy. That is impatience masquerading as editorial principle. You do not prune the plant before you even see if it is going to flower. Especially not when it is already sprouting in national news, parliamentary response and special agency involvement. Let us not pretend we are safeguarding Wikipedia's standards by gutting important articles while they are still developing. We are just short-circuiting coverage in the parts of the world that already get less attention — and calling it "neutrality". So yes, absolutely expand the article. Deleting it now would say a lot more about our own editorial blind spots than it would about the notability of the event. Anne4321 (talk) 03:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Flipandflopped, 93, and Anne4321. Accidents in Asia (also in Africa and Latin America) are often nominated under the pretense that they do not interest anyone. I beg to differ. gidonb (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they interest people. That's not the issue with event notability. The issue is whether the event will have lasting significance in secondary sources, not immediate press coverage in its aftermath. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:58, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, lasting significance is the standard, but you are applying it like a laser beam to articles from the Global South while routinely giving incidents in Western countries a generous "wait and see" grace period. Somehow, when a crash happens in the UK or US, it is "potentially notable". When it is in Malaysia or Nigeria, it is "probably not lasting". That is not policy. That is a pattern. Also, "lasting significance in secondary sources" does not mean we sit back and delete anything that does not immediately have a Netflix documentary. Many enduringly notable events start with exactly what this article already has. To wave that away as meaningless "immediate press coverage" is to fundamentally misunderstand how news cycles evolve, especially in countries with less centralised media infrastructure. Frankly, this gatekeeping dressed as editorial rigor is how Wikipedia ends up with a deeply Eurocentric article base, despite claiming to be a global encyclopedia. If we are serious about addressing systemic bias, then cases like this — with strong signals of notability and a meaningful impact on public discourse — deserve to be kept and improved, not deleted out of habit. Anne4321 (talk) 03:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
but you are applying it like a laser beam to articles from the Global South while routinely giving incidents in Western countries a generous "wait and see" grace period Focus on content, not your perceptions of what other editors may or may not believe. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True. The tendency to fast-track deletion of articles about tragedies in Asia, Africa or Latin America under the guise of "event notability" is less about policy and more about whose tragedies we quietly deem encyclopedic and whose we do not. Let us not pretend this is just about WP:GNG — it is about which events get the benefit of the doubt. Anne4321 (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your support! I agree with the policy-based statements of the other keep sayers. Hence the "per" statement. Participating in a lot of these debates, I also raised a general concern and observation. The folks above me got that. Reiterating, so the closer doesn't accidently weigh my statement by the length of the sentences and by the part of it that created a healthy debate under my opinion. gidonb (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a random news story without sustained coverage in secondary sources. Casualty counts and government statements are not sustained coverage in secondary sources. ITN is not a test for notability or really in touch with the community at all, and invoking it at AfD is bizarre. The location of a subject does not change the standard for notability; if an editor is attacking someone for nominating something from Malaysia for deletion, then the discussion should continue at an administrative forum. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 14:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rosebank railway station

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

A before search found just mentions of name. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 18:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and South Africa. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 18:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Southern_Line_(Cape_Town)#Route as typical fate of less notable transit stations. Mangoe (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I-CTDi

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

This covers the same topic as Common rail#Acronyms and branding used and does not meet WP:N. It is simply a marketing term, used by Honda in the European market between 2002 and 2008.
The article was created as a redirect and remained one for 16 years, when long-term vandal Sevgilerde tried restoring it. It was then turned back into a redirect by ToadetteEdit, Rosguill, Ponyo, Boleyn, and a fifth editor who has since vanished. "i-CTDi" is simply a badging applied by Honda to ~~two separate diesel engines,~~ the N22A engine~~and an Isuzu engine modified by Honda~~. When Honda updated the N22A engine, they switched to the i-DTEC acronym. Both of these are simply marketing terms used by Honda for their diesel engines, just like Renault's DCi, Mercedes' Cgi, and Hyundai's CRDI - all of which were turned into articles by the same vandal and correctly turned back into redirects. Any of the meaningful content used here would be more suitable at Honda N engine or Kenichi Nagahiro (someone just needs to create that).
Also see D-4D, TDCi, Cdi, CDTi for additional, analogous redirects. Mr.choppers | ✎ 19:07, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. I see some interesting history here. A year ago, I BLAR'd the article claiming that it was non notable, but got quickly reverted. Since then, at least two other reviewers agreed that it should be redirected to common rail, but their attempts were both reverted as well. I currently see that Andy Dingley disagreed with the views of three unique reviewers and restored the article to the version made by the sock together with expanding the article. It looks different than what I initially saw so expect a commentary within the next 24 hours. But now I doubt that the history might warrant a report at ANI, who knows? ToadetteEdit (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I took a review of the article, and frankly enough, I do not know if it will pass WP:GNG or not. I see scholary journals discussing the subject in detail, but they are written by people at Honda, so I do not know whether the journals are independent enough or not. I also see that the first source is from Honda,so it does not establish notability in the context. I also see other websites, but they are in favor of the car models other than the subject itself. Unless it can be justified that at least two sources away from Honda show SIGCOV, Redirect to common rail with no prejudice to page development in the draftspace so as to be submitted via AFC. ToadetteEdit (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that, as far as I can tell, the SAE article is specifically about the N22A engine – it's paywalled but the blurb makes no mention of the i-CTDi marketing name. Mr.choppers | ✎ 13:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would anyone be motivated to create an article Kenichi Nagahiro , just so that you can delete it and call them a vandal?

We have policies here based on WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. You are ignoring these in favour of some personal disagreement with another editor. Even if they're guilty of whatever it is you allege, this has now grown to the detriment of the overall project. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOODFAITH, please. Compare DCi, Cgi, CRDI, D-4D, TDCi, Cdi, CDTi. Mr.choppers | ✎ 00:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or a better message is to both of you to be separate one another and assume good faith. In particular that the comment above does not address the content but rather to the nominator, which is short of the Wikipedia:Civility policy. ToadetteEdit (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to hide behind 'good faith' when you're the one repeatedly describing anyone who disagrees with you as a vandal. First time you did this to me you were taken to ANI over it. You then repeated the same term. So please don't pretend that you didn't know that at least one of us here finds that a deeply offensive allegation. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:50, 8 June 2025 (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 keep‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of airlines of Pakistan

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

Article has zero sources. Propose either deleting, or draftifying until sources are added. Danners430 (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Lists, and Pakistan. Danners430 (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep due to incorrect deletion rationale. The article does have sources. They're misformatted in the "External links" section. Inline sources are highly preferred, but are not required. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced properly per Bushranger, though I've removed the 'upcoming airlines' as that is completely unsourced by any of the external links and we should only list active airlines. Nathannah • 📮 22:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no reason for deletion given as this is a valid list article. SportingFlyer T·C 07:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even list articles need sources which was the original reason it was nominated - although Bushranger pointed out the mistake I made, which wasn’t this Danners430 (talk) 07:39, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
List articles serve a number of different purposes, sources may not necessarily be required especially if the page has a clear navigational purpose. SportingFlyer T·C 02:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we want to remove sources altogether, then we have to remove information such as “fleet size” - I’m sorry, but we can’t be expecting readers to hunt for sources in other articles - and per WP:CIRCULAR we shouldn’t be using other articles as sources anyway. Perhaps the solution is to simplify the list and remove information that changes frequently (like fleet size) - the rest is already sourced as Bushranger pointed out multiple days ago. Danners430 (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is just a list of relevant notable items. It does not need any sources. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This particular list does need sources due to the presence of the fleet size column - that at a minimum requires sourcing per WP:CIRCULAR. And I’d argue strongly that the rest should also have at least basic sourcing, which it already does as Bushranger pointed out many days ago. Danners430 (talk) 08:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I got distracted these last few days. As @The Bushranger pointed out, there is basic sourcing in place, so I fully agree the nomination is incorrect and I’m happy to withdraw it. However, I do feel that if we’re going to have the “fleet size” column then that needs sourcing or removing. Danners430 (talk) 08:22, 11 June 2025 (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.

Goombala Road

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

The article doesn't establish the notability of this road. A Google search online only found 1 blog article, which isn't enough to demonstrate notability. – numbermaniac 08:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 08:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge >>> Tarra-Bulga National Park, where the road runs and appears to be used of environmental studies. Djflem (talk) 09:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't found significant coverage about the topic to justify its notability. I have reviewed this article and have checked those blue links presented in this article but I didn't see any mention about Goombala Road. Fade258 (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ghazni Province road crash

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability, and high-casualty bus crashes are common. Fails WP:EVENT. Unable to find sustained significant coverage, and this is already covered in sufficient detail at Kabul–Kandahar Highway. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Afghanistan. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS; no substantial coverage of the even after the date of occurance. ToadetteEdit (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2025 (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. ✗plicit 14:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Kiryandongo bus accident

AfDs for this article:

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability, and high-casualty bus crashes are common. Fails WP:EVENT. Unable to find sustained significant coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Uganda. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events (including most .. accidents ..) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. No WP:SUSTAINED coverage. XYZ1233212 (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of sustained coverage beyond a short mourning period. ToadetteEdit (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2025 (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.

Yuquanying

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

Non-notable intersection. In attempting to source this article, I was unable to find any valid sources about this particular intersection, much less anything that would contribute to notability. Garsh (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. Shellwood (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems odd to me that the article is focused on an intersection. Isn't Yuquanying a major road, not just an intersection? (There seem to be many articles about the road and building complexes on the road via Google News.) Cielquiparle (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability and I couldn't find sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 09:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability. Jeepday (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yuquanying Subdistrict. The Chinese name here is 玉泉营, which seems to refer to a variety of topics in that area, but I think all can be covered at the main subdistrict article. That article could be expanded with this source, which covers the history of the area in depth, though its reliability could be debated [3]. Toadspike [Talk] 11:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Sources have been added, focus has been expanded to mention Yuquanying's 800 years of history as one of the 18 floricultural villages of the Fengtai district of Beijing before becoming the site of a major highway intersection and overpass. (OK I'm still in the process of untangling how best to cite and/or edit that section, which could still take several days as I try to work on other things.) Sincerely appreciate the pointer to the administrative subdistrict page provided by Toadspike (not to mention their spirit of investigation which is what makes these geography AfD puzzles interesting), but the modern administrative subdistrict article can remain separate from the Yuquanying article about the history of the village since the Jin dynasty. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have mixed feelings about this – I considered expanding this article, but decided that Yuquanying Subdistrict, an article about a populated place, is more suitable for this information. I don't mean to be rude, but you have effectively hijacked this article and changed its topic to one that we already cover elsewhere. Toadspike [Talk] 09:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 800-year history of the village of Yuquanying, where there is now also a highway overpass, is not covered at all in the current article about Yuquanying Subdistrict, which focuses on an administrative region established in 2021. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can only have one topic claiming notablity per GEOLAND on this, and here it should be the legally-recognized subdistrict. Of the three sources you link, the first is about the subdistrict, the second lists Yuquanying among other subdistricts like Majiapu Subdistrict and some places that don't seem to have legal recognition, and the third is a mathematical analysis of traffic at the intersection that doesn't actually tell us anything about the intersection. I am not convinced this shows the need for a split from the main subdistrict article. Toadspike [Talk] 10:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, we can still keep looking for more sources; those were just indicative and as I said, it's still a work in progress. The first source actually leads with the modern Yuquanying subdistrict but the third paragraph is about the historical village of Yuquanying and its 800-year history as a flower town. The second source is interesting because it references the historical (centuries-old) concept of the 18 villages of Fengtai district, which is discussed elsewhere in books and suggests a fruitful line of research, and also provides more context about the floricultural history of the region. (Actually not sure what to do with "Beijing Yuquanying highway" in the third source; not even sure if it's actually about the actual intersection or overpass. Is it? Very unclear from looking at the article.) Anyway Wikipedia is full of multiple articles about the same geographic location. We could easily keep splitting this article into sub-topics and at minimum, Yuquanying would have to be retained as a disambiguation page. (And yes, you are correct: it is more polite to assume good faith per WP:AGF.) Cielquiparle (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: per Toadspike, I don't see a convincing argument for keeping both Yuquanying Subdistrict and Yuquanying, the history part of this article, which I guess was added post-nom, can be put in the subdistrict article and this can redirect there. Moritoriko (talk) 09:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even clear that the administrative region is geographically in the same place as the old village! In fact, it subsumes several old neighbouring villages, possibly. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese geography and naming is a bit outside my wheelhouse, but would you say it is likely that the name of the subdistrict was chosen because of the old village? Doing further research on the "18 villages of Fengtai" is not showing me much of anything either, perhaps that information should be put in that article instead. Moritoriko (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:49, 11 June 2025 (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. ✗plicit 14:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May Mobility

AfDs for this article:

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

Continues to fail WP:NORG and reads like an advertisement. - Amigao (talk) 04:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Transportation, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has been at AFD before so Soft Deletion is not an option here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Struggling to find three decent sources to establish notability as a company. The use of closely paraphrased copyright violations (see article history) is another factor in recommending deletion - I am not confident that other parts of the content have not been similarly plagiarised. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Didn't pass notability guidelines specially NORG and article looks like an advertisement. Fade258 (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2025 (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.

Westgate Pedestrian and Cycle Bridge

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

I cannot find any independent significant coverage of the bridge. All the sources are either press releases or just some very basic news coverage of the bridge opening. The only SIGCOV I found was written by two men who worked on the bridge and thus not independent. Some information could be merged to Northwestern Motorway Traumnovelle (talk) 09:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Transportation, and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This could go both ways - either it's just a routine bridge over a motorway or it passes GNG more so than a routine bridge over the motorway. I think there's just enough coverage that it goes beyond routine, but I can see this one going either way. SportingFlyer T·C 20:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete When it comes down to it, there is no claim of notability in the article for what appears to be a run-of-the-mill pedestrian overpass. Mangoe (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and User:Mangoe above. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1 google news hit. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Google News is not the arbiter of GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 07:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's an indicator if an entity is covered in major media outlets. LibStar (talk) 07:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The technical paper referred to by the nominator, which they agree is SIGCOV, shows exactly why this bridge is notable. Its structural engineering is sufficiently unusual and innovative that the engineers who designed it were able to write a technical paper on the design and construction of the bridge that was presented and published at an international conference on bridges. If it were a run-of-the-mill bridge, they would not have bothered to write the paper and it would not have been accepted for the conference. Paora (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The technical paper would be a non-independent source as it was written by engineers associated with the bridge. LibStar (talk) 04:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the technical paper, [4], does seem to make a case for the bridge being innovative, and [5] is further coverage explaining why the bridge was necessary.-Gadfium (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are many articles in the New Zealand Herald and the Western Leader covering the necessity for the bridge, most of which can be found via Newztext and not via Google News. Paora (talk) 11:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People build bridges, for the most part, because they are needed; it doesn't make any given bridge notable. And I don't see a paper by the builder's designers as conferring notability either. If it were widely cited in the literature that would be a different story, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Mangoe (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts on that technical paper?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The technical paper is incredibly well-detailed but per WP:INDEPENDENT 'To verify that a subject is important, only a source that is independent of the subject can provide a reliable evaluation. A source too close to the subject will always believe that the subject is important enough to warrant detailed coverage, and relying exclusively upon this source will present a conflict of interest and a threat to a neutral encyclopedia.' The authors of the paper were the engineers for the bridge. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stations

Rosebank railway station

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

A before search found just mentions of name. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 18:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and South Africa. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 18:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Southern_Line_(Cape_Town)#Route as typical fate of less notable transit stations. Mangoe (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chexi railway station

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

Searched both English and Chinese sources and found no sourcing to satisfy WP:V. Jumpytoo Talk 06:41, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and China. Jumpytoo Talk 06:41, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't read Chinese, so all my research and guesses are done with the assistance of Google Translate. This might be a non-standard or incorrect transliteration, or a station that was renamed. Could it be one of these:
- Qianxi Railway Station (wikidata:Q78327338) railway station in Bijie, Guizhou 9 statements, 2 sitelinks - 10:13, 6 September 2024
- Qianxi Railway Station (wikidata:Q17061065) station of Datong-Qinhuangdao Railway in Qianxi, Tangshan, Hebei 10 statements, 1 sitelink - 23:49, 4 September 2024
- https://en.namu.wiki/w/%EC%B2%B8%EC%8B%9C%EC%97%AD
- zh:黔西站
- https://www.google.com/maps/place/%E9%BB%94%E8%A5%BF%E8%BD%A6%E7%AB%99/@27.01642,106.040543,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x36c058bffd8e6637:0x47846770d0d1a772!8m2!3d27.01642!4d106.040543!16s%2Fg%2F11hf38wm86?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYwNC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
- Google's AI speculates that the name "Che Xi" is most likely a reference to Xi Jinping, the current General Secretary of the Communist Party of China. He is also known as "People's Leader" and "pilot at the helm." The name "Xi" is also used to refer to other figures like Xi Zhongxun and Xi Shi, but these are less common and are not the same person as the current political leader.
- The China Railway Map site at http://cnrail.geogv.org/enus/about ought to answer our question, but doesn't include a station with this name. If there is an online version of 中华人民共和国铁路车站代码 (Railway station codes of the People's Republic of China), it might be possible to check that we have articles on all the stations on this railway line, and in the process create an article on this station, even if it has been renamed. We might find that the Chinese Wikipedia already has an article on this station under a different spelling. Official directories of railway stations might also include coordinates that could be added to the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:37, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I used the Chinese name that was on the route map for Chinese Wikipedia for my BEFORE and that did not turn up anything. The links you provided are all the wrong province and the wrong line so they are not it. And that geogv.org site uses Wikipedia as a source so it is not helpful. Jumpytoo Talk 21:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete If we cant get anything on "Chexi" station, I don't see how we can keep this, especially when we are having trouble working out what station this might really be. We definitely don't want to do anything that suggests this is a legitimate name in English for a place. Mangoe (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've checked Baidu Maps, which has a very capable search engine, and found a Chexi toll station, a Chexi scenic area ticket booth, and Chexi village. And to get from Hefei to Chexi village by train seems to end with a 55 minute car ride from Yichang. This seems like a hoax or a mistake. Oblivy (talk) 11:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jashore Cantonment railway station

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

Another contested redirect without improvement. Contested redirect without improvement. Zero in-depth sourcing, and Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an important railway station near to the Jashore Cantonment as well as Jashore University of Science and Technology. Everyday thousand of new student and come and used this station to get Jashore cantonment and Jashore University of Science and Technology. When I created this article I carefully read all the content after I created this article. I don't think it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stud.asif (talk • contribs) 07:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My search of English Language sources did not turn up any evidence of notablility. I may have missed good sources in other languages. Please ping me if sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This railway station located in Bangladesh so it is difficult to find out any notable evidence in English. If you search the same evidence in Bengali. There will be a lot of evidence which prove it notable railway station. Stud.asif (talk) 08:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Darshana Junction railway station

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

Contested redirect without improvement. Zero in-depth sourcing, and Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a Junction railway station. This station is used by many people for their needs as it is a junction station so many consider it as a transit point and use it. While creating this article I read the article guidelines carefully and then created it. So I don't think there is a need to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stud.asif (talk • contribs) 07:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation Proposed deletions

The following Transportation-related Proposed deletions are active: None at present List newer discussions at the top of this list.

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

None at present