Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation

WP:DELTRANS

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Transportation.

Further information

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

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation/archive

Purge page cache

watch

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

Transportation[edit]

78th Road[edit]

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

Doesn't meet anything at WP:NROADS and there's nothing to show significant coverage in any reliable sources.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Downard-Wilke[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Downard-Wilke does not meet our notability guidelines for people, with very little (if any) independent sourcing. See the first nomination which was speedy kept as it was linked from the main page's DYK section. It was promptly removed after the COIN case was brought up. To me this page seems to be relatively unambiguous self-promotion. wound theology ◈ 08:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Germany, and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based on encountering what I consider significant coverage in two profiles [1] (in this one he is rendered as "Wilke" rather than "Downard-Wilke") and [2]. This combined with the less significant but also more than trivial coverage across sources cited in the article leads me to consider the topic notable. I'm also perplexed by the OP's comment that this page seems to be relatively unambiguous self-promotion. This article wasn't created or edited by its subject (who would be the "self" in self-promotion); the COIN case is about someone who knows Downard-Wilke interpersonally having contributed to the article. Downard-Wilke, who is disclosed to be Schwede66 on Wikipedia, has never edited this article. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 12:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really want to go too deep into source debates for reasons stated in my comments below, but you might want to read my original nomination statement from the first AfD – certainly that first Stuff article you linked is not an independent source. It was written to promote this edit-a-thon to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Stuff itself, which Downard-Wilke appears to have played some role in organising. This does call into question more broadly whether Stuff articles can be considered independent of Downard-Wilke.

The apparent less significant but also more than trivial coverage you refer to I believe amounts to a notability bomb when carefully investigated – although there are many sources, none turn out to contribute to notability. – Teratix ₵ 16:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not self-promotion but it is a prolific DYK contributor being asked to make an article about a prominent Wikipedian and get it on the front page. Obviously we don't know who did the asking. It all stinks, anyway. Secretlondon (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original AfD nominator here. I think this follow-up AfD is slightly premature. There is an evolving discussion underway at COIN, where Schwede66 has mentioned a cache of 50-odd potential sources for review. It would be better to take some time to properly go over these sources before going straight back to AfD. Plus, this way interested participants would not have to split their energy between content and conduct discussions, and so we can get all the facts right about the circumstances behind the article's creation (for example, I agree with Hydrangeans that calling it "self-promotion", given what we know right now, is tenuous because Schwede66 hasn't touched the article).

As it stands I would prefer this be suspended or closed procedural keep with no prejudice against renomination once other discussions have taken their course and Schwede66's sources been thoroughly reviewed. – Teratix ₵ 15:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Echoing the two previous comments. I feel this AFD is a bit rushed, and I don't see reasons why it may be labelled as self-promotion yet. X (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notability is clearly determined by multiple reliable news articles on the subject from The Star and Stuff. Both outlets are reliable independent sources in New Zealand. Before anyone questions whether I have a CoI, I have met Axel once in an online Wikipedia meetup call, and all of my interactions with him have been on and about Wikipedia. However, outside of Wikipedia I have heard his name mentioned in several places related to urban planning in Christchurch. He is certainly a notable figure in this city, and I also consider him notable enough for a wikipedia article.

David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 23:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Teratix pointed out, the Stuff article is not an independent source. Not sure about The Star. wound theology ◈ 06:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are other Stuff articles that establish notability, particularly on the macron debate. Believe it or not that was newsworthy in NZ. When I tell people I edit Wikipedia, people ask me about that specific topic. Wilke was a fairly central figure in the coverage of that debate., as established by the sources. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 06:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- a prolific contributor surely has achieved enough notoriety to deserve an article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.176.212 (talk • contribs)
Keep at this time - on the surface appears to just meet WP:GNG. This does seem like it is better to be reviewed at COIN in the first instance and improve things from there, and a renomination can be done after that process is complete. Mdann52 (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:BASIC Lightburst (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of the busiest airports in Israel[edit]

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

Poorly cited list that has little or no encyclopedic value. There is one main airport in Israel, one that's mostly domestic (Eilat-Ramon), and one unscheduled (Haifa) with no data present. The comparison of these three airports is mostly useless, as it compares very different things. Artem.G (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Artem.G (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge These are part of a fixed busiest airports in X structure, so the question is whether to keep on that or to merge into List of airports in Israel, which I think makes sense. But we shouldn't lose the information. SportingFlyer T·C 19:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there are just four numbers in the entire list, two of them duplicated (numbers for Ben Gurion airport are somehow identical in 2020 and 2017), and another one unsourced (Haifa 2017). There is not much to lose, but I agree that merge makes sense. Artem.G (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of airports in Israel leaving redir. There simply isn't enough for a stand-alone article. Zero^talk 01:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of airports in Israel. After expanding, there are more data and sources now. The 2020 Eilat Ramon data point I still could not verify and seems large. Flagged as such. Others I have added and/or corrected. gidonb (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wikidata query gives the same number, don't know how reliable it is. Artem.G (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking this up, Artem.G! It could be full circle. Still unsure about this one data point. gidonb (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of airports in Israel. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. User:Hamterous1 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️)} 13:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDB. This is just a collection of passenger data for a few random years. It seems like the idea is to gather statistics for as many years as possible, but Wikipedia shouldn't be the place to store all those data. Mentioning the latest figures in List of airports in Israel is sufficient. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the busiest airports in Iran. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Airports in Israel. Data from here can be plced in that article if needed. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 11:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citybuzz[edit]

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

Non-notable WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussions of similar recent deletions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 1; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 7 --wooden superman 08:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Shellwood (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination this fails WP:GNG as there is no significant non-WP:ROTM coverage in WP:RS. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added several sources and notability is now established per WP:GNG. ROTM is an essay, is subjective, and is trumped by GNG, a guideline. Route is not comparable to articles like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 7 as this one has sufficient sourcing available online. Garuda3 (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though perhaps, this article ought to be moved to Brighton & Hove bus routes 37 and 37B as I couldn't find any coverage on "City Buzz" or "Citybuzz" which may be what prompted this AfD. Garuda3 (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your claim that WP:GNG has now been met for this routine bus route. The sources you've added are from local news sites and hardly meet WP:SIGCOV. --wooden superman 15:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Pune car crash[edit]

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

WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOTNEWS, no significant coverage outside India and trivial commentary by a few politicians, possibly because it happened during the 2024 Indian general election. Borgenland (talk) 07:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As stated in WP:N(E), "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) [...] are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." There's nothing about this event that indicates it has (or will have) enduring significance. Ethmostigmus (talk | contribs) 11:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It will have enduring significance, we are seeing members of the current ruling party lauchpadding this case for the movement of judicial reform. 27.63.231.66 (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which coinciding with the general election, may as well be an electoral stunt that everyone will forget. Borgenland (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very much a routine automobile accident, you could replace "Pune" with almost any city around the globe and the story would be the same. NOTNEWS Oaktree b (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Automobile accidents are very common, run of the mill incidents, sure, this incident may have gotten a tad bit more attention from politicians and the news, but at the end of the day, its frankly not really news. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has got significant coverage for now. It will take sometime to see if it meets WP:LASTING. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: And until then, relevant policies stipulate that the incident is not notable, and an article on it therefore cannot be sustained. If this is still in the news two years from now, I expect anyone still interested can recreate it at that time. Ravenswing 15:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID. Not the right time to decide notability of the subject that has already got enough coverage. Srijanx22 (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is incredibly MILL and probably didn't need the usual pointlessly rageful Republic/NDTV overcoverage which seems to be openly turning a simple vehicular death incident into exactly what they want. There won't be lasting coverage and it will likely end with private settlements and other justice currently happening now. Nate • (chatter) 22:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Still getting coverage.[3] ArvindPalaskar (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ reiterate a minimal casualty toll, non-notable victims (that the suspect was driving a Porsche is mere WP:TRIVIA) and no significant coverage outside India. Borgenland (talk) 06:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This above comment is posted by the same editor who also nominated this article for deletion.[4] Ratnahastin (talk) 06:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stricken for emphasis. That's right. You need to sign + timestamp all nominations, Borgenland, which already count as your preference to delete (!vote). El_C 07:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn’t notice that in the starter. Thanks! Borgenland (talk) 07:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, all good. El_C 07:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTNEWS and above in general. The Kip ^(contribs) 08:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons others have mentioned, if this is something that will become notable then it's WP:TOOSOON. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To say that an article should be deleted only because it concerns a recent incident is not sensible. Should wait for some weeks before doing AfD in these cases. Shankargb (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that it's recent so much as it's a completely run of the mill drunk driving crash that killed two people. It quite literally is not notable. The Kip ^(contribs) 17:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... which was stated in the OP. What isn't sensible is to base an opinion at AfD based on cherrypicking only one element of the nomination. Ravenswing 17:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Run-of-the-mill car crash of which hundreds of the same scale occur every day. Just because something receives a small burst of news coverage does not mean it is notable. Curbon7 (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SUSTAINED etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete run of the mill accident without the depth or extent of media coverage, such that it is not notable. The only thing setting it apart is the odd bail conditions, but that is insufficient to give it notability. Local Variable (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem notable to me at all. These types of crashes occur every day. Sadustu Tau (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While vehicle accidents are not automatically notable, this one is a different case. 2024 elections are not really relevant for this incident. This car crash has gained significant worldwide coverage, [5] contrary to this AfD nomination. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doubtful over its sustainable coverage though. At this rate it is a mere eccentric news from abroad. Borgenland (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's basically a car crash, which will not generate sustained coverage. If it does indeed generate long-term coverage, it can be recreated. OhHaiMark (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (1)The case has garnered significant media coverage with each & every update of the case being telecasted and covered across the board. Multiple national politicians have already made comments on it during the ongoing 2024 Indian General Elections. Therefore the subject is already notable enough for an independent page. The incident is of national coverage and has already brought the discussion on the Judiciary and Police executives to the forefront. (2) Being a recent news, as per WP:RAPID it is better to keep the page for now since there is no deadline to delete the page. Moreover, if its not WP:SUSTAINED in future, it can always be deleted. (3) For WP:TOOSOON multiple developments have already taken place in the investigation with reactions from many notable people. Therefore it is not too soon and sufficient time has already passed. EditorOnJob (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep the incident is clearly notable, and it passes Wikipedia:Notability (events). The incident is being covered all over India in reliable sources. Nominator's rationale "no significant coverage outside India is also inappropriate. Most of the murders, and missing persons cases (from all over the world) do not get international coverage, very few do. When the car crash took place, I thought the coverage was sensationalism, but later the decisions were cancelled, and now three generations are in custody source. The resulting coverage is now not sensationalism. According to this, (posted on 23, crash was on 19) it has grabbed national attention. The car crash has also reopened the investigation of a hit placed by Surndra Agarwal on a corporator through mafia/underworld don [6] Two doctors of state-run hospital were arrested source. These things do not happen with run of the mill car crashes. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SUSTAINED. If there are significant changes in popular media, legislation etc. because of this event over the next few years then we can recreate the article. Also to the nom, that "no significant coverage outside India" is definitely uncalled for. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a multinational news story. It is not about a car crash, but instead about social issues such as wealth avoiding legal consequences, bribery, rich young people using alcohol, the rights of common people versus rich, and others. This is not a routine report of an automobile collision, nor is it local, and the story is very likely to have ongoing updates because of further developments including the bribery accusations and accusations of corruption of doctors, police, and the courts. Bluerasberry (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beastie Boys Square[edit]

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

The topic of this article does not meet WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG or WP:GEOFEAT. In short, this is one of many commemorative street names given to locations in New York City. The only coverage is WP:PRIMARYNEWS coverage of the renaming being denied, then approved. A previous attempt to merge the content to Paul's Boutique#Beastie Boys Square (where the content has already existed since September 2023) per WP:NOPAGE was reverted. Epicgenius (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and New York. Epicgenius (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore merge location above, or merge to Beastie Boys. Fair game to mention somewhere, but I'm failing to see why it needs its own stand-alone article when there's so little of substance to say on it. Sergecross73 msg me 10:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is quite a lot of coverage on the 10 year journey. There are plenty of articles, probably over 100 plus TV coverage.. it will, be included in books and it is a designated Sq in NYc. Def passes Wikipedia:GNG VeniceBreeze (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:MERGEREASON - even if there's sources, its a valid decision to merge things if the article is short and easily placed in the context of a related article, which perfectly fits in this situation. Sergecross73 msg me 18:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one looking for info on the square would go to an article about an album. I added several articles from 2014, 2019 and 2021 to show ongoing coverage but, there are thousands more and the article could certainly be improved beyond what would be appropriate for a section under Pauls Boutique. There is coverage on several votes, the guy who lobbied for it, and the tasks they had to accomplish to get it approved. I didnt write a front page article.. its 3 days old.. do what you want but there is 10 years of I n depth coverage.. VeniceBreeze (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point about "no one looking for info" will be easily met by leaving a redirect from Beastie Boys Square. ColinFine (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Due to WP:REDIRECTs and how they work, people will find it just find it just find in the merge target if they type in the name in the search bar. And if there's "10 years of coverage", then you should use that to write an article with more substance and content. Right now its quite barren. Is there anything else to say other than "they tried a couple times and eventually it happened?". There's not much more than that right now... Sergecross73 msg me 20:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I updated it with some more info but the idea is they have a huge fanbase to contribute.. the article was 3 days old before he tried to delete it without even leaving me a message on my page. VeniceBreeze (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldnt anyone think this is an important site that should have coordinates and a map pin for tourists? VeniceBreeze (talk) 05:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one is objecting to the inclusion of coordinates or a map. However, when I merged the article, it looked like this.
I understand you may feel offended that I didn't leave a message on your talk page when I merged the article. I did not delete anything; all of the content in the article, aside from the references, was already in Paul's Boutique#Beastie Boys Square, with some minor wording changes. To be honest, I was looking for reliable sources so the article could be expanded, but all I found were references that parroted what was already in the page, as well as unreliable sources. (This page currently contains four NY Post sources, which are generally not reliable per WP:NYPOST, and an Atlas Obscura geography article, which is not reliable per WP:AOPLACES.) – Epicgenius (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ny post is fine except for politics. Its the oldest and most read paper in ny. If you dont like it, a simple search for beastie boys square before 2020 results in 1000s of hits.[7]https://www.google.com/search?q=beastie+boys+square&sca_esv=cfae4c7047bddcaf&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS945US945&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A2013%2Ccd_max%3A2019&sxsrf=ADLYWIIt9UAK34OYWynm8i2jGGNjm9pQxA%3A1716659031135&ei=VyNSZv7xB_7GkPIPmqGEqAo&ved=0ahUKEwi--YCeramGAxV-I0QIHZoQAaUQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=beastie+boys+square&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiE2JlYXN0aWUgYm95cyBzcXVhcmUyBBAjGCcyBBAjGCcyERAuGIAEGJECGMcBGIoFGK8BMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeSO0OUIkDWPwHcAF4AJABAJgBYKABowOqAQE1uAEDyAEA-AEBmAIFoAK5A8ICCxAuGIAEGMcBGK8BmAMAiAYBkgcDNC4xoAftIw&sclient=gws-wiz-serp VeniceBreeze (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to post an external link.. not sure why that all came out. I posted more sources incase the ny post doesnt represent reputable coverage of The Beastie Boys and NYC events. VeniceBreeze (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what WP:NYPOST says... Sergecross73 msg me 21:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be an experienced editor.. why are you purposely being ignorant and obtuse? I said i added additional articles.. LA Times, Variety, Billboard, Rolling Stone.. all prior to the 2020 coverage.. there is plenty for an article and its a tourist attraction. VeniceBreeze (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do what I said? You said NY Post was okay to use outside of politics. That's objectively not the current stance. Sergecross73 msg me 23:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does it not say i added billboard, rolling stone, variety,and the LA Times if you werent happy w the NY Post's coverage of the Beastie Boys. All before 2020? VeniceBreeze (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't commenting on everything you said, I was merely singling out a falsehood you stated in your argument. You haven't countered that point at all, so I'll assume you're dropping that aspect of your argument. Sergecross73 msg me 13:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop trying to provoke me into an argument. You can lawyer all you want but an easy search shows how many articles the nypost is cited in. Also, i feel very threatened and triggered by the messages and attempts to provoke me on my talk page. I would appreciate it if you would keep the conversation here. Im done working on this article.. if 20 years of experience lead you tp these beliefs, fine. I believe in quantum information storage, so if your lying it will be recorded for eternity. Best of luck to everyone.. good bye beastie boys square, no page forever.. thanks to these voters VeniceBreeze (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to provoke you into anything. I corrected your statement on the NYP and notified you of WP:NPA on your talk page since you keep calling me "ignorant" and "obtuse" for not agreeing with you. How you feel threatened by this series of events is beyond baffling to me. Sergecross73 msg me 19:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore merge to Paul's Boutique § Beastie Boys Square, which contains content identical to the article, although missing the Gothamist source. A merge will preserve the visibility of the history and the functionality of inbound links. Folly Mox (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cầu Diễn station[edit]

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

Zero sources to meet the GNG. The source cited doesn't mention this station. The only others I could find list it as one among several stations [8][9] and say nothing more. No significant coverage. Toadspike [Talk] 15:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please redirect this to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro). Toadspike [Talk] 15:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and Vietnam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the position data, etc. to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro) and redirect there if sources cannot be found (they're most likely to be in Vietnamese, so do check in that language). There is no reason to delete the information present in the article which will be useful if it is expanded in future. Thryduulf (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge there isn't enough coverage (or content) for a separate article from Line 3 (Hanoi Metro) yet, but there might be in the future. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references from the corresponding article in Vietnamese. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. All these metro station articles can be expanded (and their references improved) using the information already present in the corresponding articles in Vietnamese and other languages. Reviewing relevant articles in other languages is an important part of WP:BEFORE. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per my talk page: I checked the Vietnamese Wikipedia articles for most of these nominations and their sourcing was no better. In this example, there is a map from Hanoi Metro [10], which isn't an independent source and has no information to boot, and this source [11], which doesn't mention the station at all.

Source review on enwiki: Four sources never mention this station [12][13][14][15] (yes, I even watched the full 56-second video). There is also an article which lists the names of eight stations but says nothing more about this station [16].

I assume good faith when people say sources exist somewhere, but in this case there are even fewer sources there and none are useful for notability. I do not appreciate the casting of aspersions about my BEFORE checks. Toadspike [Talk] 06:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go further than Toadspike. You are completely out of line, Eastmain. You make a habit of dumping any source you find online and then saying keep without actually reading them, and have an idea of what constitutes significant coverage that is utterly out of line with community consensus. Your AfD match rate is below 60%, while Toadspike is at nearly 90%. If anyone needs to improve their behavior at AfD, it is you (I'm at 83%, if you're wondering). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Reza Seyedi[edit]

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

BLP fails WP:GNG and all relevant biography guidelines. The basic problem is a lack of WP:SIGCOV in any sources. Quick review of existing sources: 1, 3/8, and 4 are WP:ROUTINE/WP:TRIVIAL coverage, not significant mentions. Source 2 has no reference to the subject. 5, 9 and 10 are primary source bios. 6 and 7 are trivial mentions in lists of speakers. 11-15 are references to the subject's own writing and thus ineligible for notability. A WP:BEFORE search turns up no additional sources to point to notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Aviation, Transportation, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mont-Tremblant/Lac Ouimet Water Aerodrome[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBUILDING and WP:GNG. Long defunct airport, Only "reference" stated is the Nav Canada Wikipedia article, which make no mention of this airport, and is improper as Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

Note: this is TC LID CST9, NOT Mont-Tremblant/Saint-Jovite Airport (TC LID: CSZ3), so if you are determining if there are any WP:RS to find, they are different airports. Zinnober9 (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Transportation, and Canada. Zinnober9 (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The 15 March 2007 Canada Flight Supplement mentioned in the article is a valid reference. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The nominator is mistaken about the source. The information is not sourced from, or claimed to be sourced from the Nav Canada Wikipedia article, but rather the Canada Water Aerodrome Supplement. The link to the Wikipedia article is for clarity as the CWAS does not appear to be available online other than for purchase from Nav Canada. - ZLEA _T\^C 07:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This is a 2005 article created when Wikipedia was much smaller, articles like this were welcomed, and notability was perhaps a bit looser. However, there was never any ideas as to the fate of abandoned aerodrome articles. Some have been redirected to "List of airports in province", others to List of defunct airports in Canada, and others still remain. The only thing this aerodrome has going for it in terms of notability is that there was a death associated with it. Doesn't really make it notable. As per the others the source is the printed, water, version of the Canada Flight Supplement. I owned copies but haven't bought one in a few years. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 zebra escape[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Short-lived event that has, even a few weeks later, had no discernable lasting impact. Per WP:N(E), the depth and duration of non-local coverage is not sufficient to establish notability. Sounder Bruce 19:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Washington. Sounder Bruce 19:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, zero impact on anything, probable WP:SUSTAINED / WP:LASTING failure. Geschichte (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom

PersusjCP (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quintessential WP:NOTNEWS of a local event with no actual significance. Escapes of exotic animals are not particularly rare, even if their unusualness attracts some public attention. Reywas92^Talk 13:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per previously raised points by above editors. Gottagotospace (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Keep: Changing my vote. Randy Kryn and Another Believer convinced me below. Gottagotospace (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG with coverage in the New York Times, The Guardian, and the Seattle coverage which covers a large regional area (not just local), but is it noteworthy? In the United States, yes, as a rarity. Maybe change the title to the name of the zebra who was on the loose for almost a week, Shug (zebra), which is what makes the topic notable (if all the zebras were quickly captured it wouldn't be, but the zebra wandering around for a week captured news coverage as well as the public's interest). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zebras wandering around is funny and great for meme material, until it's time to move onto the next meme. I don't think that justifies having an article for it, especially because it wasn't widespread coverage. Gottagotospace (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't get much more widespread than BBC + The Guardian + Smithsonian, AP, CNN, etc etc ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the coverage was widespread, so GNG is not a problem. In looking at other zebra articles this one stands out as being about individual zebras (Shug, the main focus of media coverage). Since Wikipedia coverage about individual zebras is low, then this article should be welcomed and lionized (lionized? run!). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, y'all changed my mind! Gottagotospace (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (disclaimer: page creator), per GNG. Received international coverage, plenty of sources on the talk page to expand the page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Might well have been thrilling and got a lot of short-term news coverage (click bait), but it doesn't rate encyclopedia coverage. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the few lines about the impact on the town and the "zebra specials" to the article on North Bend, Washington, otherwise this is a non-notable event. Oaktree b (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge per WP:NOTNEWS. -1ctinus📝🗨 23:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sustained coverage. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sustained coverage issues 104.7.152.180 (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

85th percentile speed[edit]

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

I do not think this concept merits its own article, and believe it is adequately covered at Speed limit#Maximum speed limits, which actually goes more into depth than this standalone article (which is nothing more than a dictionary definition). This article should be redirected to that section. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Speed limit#Maximum speed limits per nom. Stubby tidbit of information more at home in an article section. BD2412 T 01:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Speed limit#Maximum speed limits: Agree that this fails DICDEF. The citations here can be merged. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree that article should be expanded, but deletion is not cleanup. I will work to expand the stub soon and welcome help from others.

The 85th percentile speed is a policy decision that was perhaps in the past considered a minor component of Speed limit#Maximum speed limits. However it is now being covered by reliable sources as a large component of Transportation safety in the United States, with criticism directed solely at the 85th percentile rule (as opposed to high speed limits in general) and laws being written to eliminate the rule (but not high speed limits). The rule has significant coverage and meets GNG.

Subject deserves its own article to track the development of 85th percentile rule usage and decline, as covered by reliable sources. Just like Parking mandates is a different article from Parking.

PK-WIKI (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Traffic engineering (transportation) - per nom, this is a stubby DICDEF; however, merging into traffic engineering (transportation) seems better than putting this in Speed limit. If kept, it should be retitled "85th percentile speed rule" or the like. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've now expanded the stub past DICDEF, including an academic paper dedicated to this subject and recent Federal Highway Administration lobbying specifically on this rule. PK-WIKI (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MV Linga[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or any other notability guidelines. Only references are primary. No independent coverage online. Clear friend a ^💬 01:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland. Kpg jhp jm 07:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't many references that can be used other the primary sources from the owner/operator of the vessel, there is also this one though: https://www.faktaomfartyg.se/linga_2002.htm

I don't understand how MV Linga is the only Shetland Islands Council ferry article that has been getting brought up for editor issues, despite it being the same layout and similar text style to the rest of the ferry articles that I have made.

It would also be better to be more explicit with which changes would be good as it doesn't make sense that you're not allowed to make an article using references to the owners website. ZetShip (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SIC Ferries. The most applicable guideline appears to be WP:NVEHICLES, which is an essay, and anyway pretty much defaults to WP:GNG for individual vehicles. Thus secondary sourcing beyond database entries would be needed here. Unfortunately the most I can find is a fairly routine news source [17]. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but unless more sources come up - such as an offline news feature on the vessel - as an WP:ATD I recommend redirect to SIC Ferries. ResonantDis_tortion 15:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 23:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton & Hove Breeze routes[edit]

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

Non-notable WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussion of similar recent deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6 --wooden superman 12:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the routes have been discussed in various sources including the national broadcaster BBC News. I've added some of these to the article. Garuda3 (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the nomination statement is misleading. This article is about a group of three related bus routes, not an individual one as stated, bringing into question how much attention has been paid to it and to whether any WP:BEFORE has been attempted? Thryduulf (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good spot. Garuda3 (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of explorations[edit]

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

Appears to be a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list without clear inclusion criteria. It states that it has the most "important" explorations without referencing who calls them important besides the article creator. Even if notable, it would fall under WP:TNT and is invalid as a navigational list as it does not link to articles specifically about those explorations. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Archaeology, Geography, Spaceflight, and Transportation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at least in its current form. I have no idea what the ambit is supposed to be - what are "state societies"? Does the author have any idea what they are intending, as that term is linked to the utterly uninformative Complex society? If what is meant is "state-sponsored exploration", then why does it include entires like the hypothetical discovery of Hawaii in late antiquity, or Livingstone's privately funded explorations? No rhyme or reason here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A society with a state; the opposite of a stateless society. It's a well-defined and widely used term in the social sciences. – Joe (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah so. That should link to Complex society#States then, I guess? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, edit, and update. A 2001 long-term article, the page lists the first sponsored human expeditions of various locals. The topic is notable, links to various expeditionary pages, and groups these expeditions on one page. The criteria needs to be worded differently, but that's a minor point in the overall scope of the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ARTICLEAGE. When it was written is not proof it should be kept. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Essays have some who agree and others who disagree. Early Wikipedia articles which have stood the test of 23 years of time should receive more leeway and correction. This one has a very good premise which can be refined and expanded. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, on the one hand, this is a very bare-bones list, and seems to have been so for quite a while. There's no real context, and it isn't exactly the best-formatted list ever. That said, I do think that the idea behind it is notable enough. I personally think that it should be rewritten as prose and moved to History of human exploration, but it could also be rewritten as prose and merged with History of human migration (though they are substantially different, especially when it comes to things like oceans or planets). I don't think keeping it as a list is a good idea, even though List of explorers is a good, closely related list, as explorations really should have some explanation and context to them, whereas explorers don't really need that. Ships & Space_(Edits) 00:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would agree with Ships&Space. Overhauling should be done, not deletion. Lorstaking (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not opposed to a rewrite as a prose article. But in the 23 years the article has been around, nothing has been done to fix the problem. I am not sure why you believe it will be fixed in another 23 years. A deletion may encourage a new article to be created that is actually notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Common sense, just list any explorations that have their own articles or have articles for the explorers who are notable for making them. Dream Focus 07:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, pretty much per Dream Focus. I would note that a noteworthy exploration need not have its own article to merit inclusion, if it is mentioned and cited in a supertopic article. BD2412 T 22:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a low-quality list article duplicating List of explorers. Not opposed to keeping this somewhere outside of mainspace if wanted as a reference for a stand-alone history of exploration article. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm very borderline, but will lean keep because I think the list can be improved. I think it needs to be refocused by being retitled to something like 'List of notable explorations', and it needs a very clear and stringent inclusion criteria that other lists have, for example, List of video games considered the best.

Melmann 07:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 126[edit]

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

Not notable. Could be redirected to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. There is significant coverage of FMVSS 126 in a large number of sources in Google Scholar and Google Books, including at least three entire articles on this subject: [18] [19] [20]. James500 (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG.Expandinglight5 (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GNG still does not mean it must have a standalone article; per WP:NOPAGE, it's more appropriate to cover the topic in context elsewhere. There are also sources on the European Union's regulation of electronic stability control, on Australia's regulation of electronic stability control, on Canada's regulation of electronic stability control, on Argentina's regulation of electronic stability control, etc.... I'm sure an additional source for each beyond those in the main article can be found to satisfy GNG but that doesn't mean a duplicative page is necessary for this. Reywas92^Talk 17:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There does not appear to be any duplication. The laws of one country are not the same thing as the laws of another. In any event, there comes a point where the sheer volume of coverage of a topic is so large that it cannot be stuffed into a single article; and in such cases the parent article needs to be split. Electronic stability control is such a topic. There are hundreds of articles in Google Scholar that are entirely about electronic stability control, to the point where the words "electronic stability control" actually appear verbatim in their titles. The article Electronic stability control is already 62kB long and does not need to be made longer. James500 (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Um no, page length is measured by prose text and it's only 25kb/4,000 words long, well under WP:LENGTH's guideline. Expansion of that article including its regulation section is absolutely more than welcome. But if you think it should be split, a single country's regulation of it is the wrong way to do so (a different section or a general Regulation of electronic stability control would be better if warranted). This US regulation page is so short, it is duplicated in its entirety by the main article's "The United States followed, with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration implementing FMVSS 126, which requires ESC for all passenger vehicles under 10,000 pounds (4536 kg). The regulation phased in starting with 55% of 2009 models (effective 1 September 2008), 75% of 2010 models, 95% of 2011 models, and all 2012 and later models." This is unnecessary to be a separate page. Reywas92^Talk 14:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This regulation does not duplicate the regulations of other countries. The sources about this regulation do not duplicate the sources about the regulations of other countries. WP:ARTN says "if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability". Accordingly, the fact that some of the content of this article is similar to the content of the parent article does not decrease the notability of the topic of this article. In any event, the article has now been expanded some new content that is not in the parent article, and more can be added. Likewise, the fact that this article is presently short is also irrelevant, because it can be expanded so as to make it much longer. In theory, this page could be moved to Regulation of electronic stability control, without prejudice to a future split, in order to speed up the creation of such an article, but this page should not be merged into another page (which would not have the page history of this page). James500 (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Electronic stability control#Regulation, where this is already discussed. The sources above would also be better in the main article than a separate page. Individual regulations rarely need their own articles and I don't see an exception here. Reywas92^Talk 00:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or WP:ATD Merge to Electronic stability control#Regulation or Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards#Crash avoidance both of which cover the subject. There are literally hundreds of these individual regulations, evidenced with the above Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Title 49 has around 35 regulations under "Crash avoidance", "Crashworthiness" with approximately 27 regulations, "Post-crash survivability" with five regulations, "Miscellaneous" with five regulations, "Other regulations relating to transportation" with approximately 54 "parts". Per The slippery slope is creating hundreds of dictionary type entries with mainly primary sourcing, at the expense of the parent articles. Per Reywas92 Individual regulations rarely need their own articles. The actual concept is supposed to be that there is "significant coverage" in reliable and independent sources that will allow the eventual writing of a "whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic", referred to as a permastub. Just because Wikipedia allegedly has unlimited space does not mean every aspect of a subject should be broken down to the smallest part. At a point, if an individual subject grows large enough then a split should be discussed. -- Otr500 (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The number of individual regulations is not excessively large. Hundreds of regulations is nothing compared to the 6 million articles we already have, or the hundreds of millions of topics that probably satisfy GNG. In any event, no one is arguing that all the regulations should have an article. We are only arguing that the regulations that satisfy GNG should have articles. And right now we are only arguing that this one regulation satisfies GNG, which means that right now we are only arguing for exactly one article. The slippery slope fallacy is not a reason for deletion or merger. In this case, the initial step is not demonstrably likely to result in the claimed effects. The article does not violate WP:NOTDICTIONARY in its present form. It is not a definition or a dictionary entry. In any event, the article can be expanded far beyond a definition. The sourcing is not primary. Reywas92 is not a policy or guideline. There is significant coverage in reliable and independent sources that will allow the eventual writing of a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. The article is not half a paragraph or a definition, and is, in any event, capable of being expanded far beyond that. The article is not a permastub, and is, in any event, capable of being expanded far beyond that. No one has argued that every aspect of a subject should be broken down to the smallest part. We have argued that topics that satisfy GNG are presumed to merit an article. Insisting on waiting until the parent article actually reaches 8,000 words is bound to result in the article becoming seriously unbalanced (WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:PROPORTION). That is one of the reasons that we don't try to stuff and stuff and stuff lots of notable topics into a single article. James500 (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The number of individual regulations is not excessively large" Maybe not U.S. motor vehicles regulations, but internationally among all subjects there are – hundreds of thousand of regulations do not need articles. "capable of being expanded". So is the main article. There's simply no need to have this separate page at this point, regardless of your hypothetical of who would write articles on individual regulations. The sources you added are highly technical papers that I do not believe are particularly conducive for an article here. The article could easily have a "Testing procedures" section as well. "article becoming seriously unbalanced" There is no indication that this will happen and we can still split before that point. Reywas92^Talk 15:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The total number of regulations on all subjects worldwide is irrelevant: not all regulations are equal. The USA is a large country with a correspondingly large number of motor vehicles and motor vehicle accidents. Motor vehicle safety is one of more important subjects on which regulations are made (because of the risk to life and property). US motor vehicle safety regulations are likely to receive more coverage than regulations from smaller countries on less important subjects. For example, a commencement order from Tuvalu (population 11,900) is not going receive anything remotely like the kind of coverage that US motor vehicle safety regulations are going to receive. The correct approach is to create standalone articles on those regulations that actually satisfy GNG. There is no evidence that an excessive number of regulations satisfy GNG. (There is no evidence that the number of regulations that do actually satisfy GNG is actually "hundreds of thousands" or even remotely close to that.) In fact, the number of regulations that satisfy GNG is, by definition, the number that is not excessive for our purposes. The point is that no one is arguing for a standalone article on every regulation in the world, we are only arguing for articles on the regulations that satisfy GNG. I think the three articles that I linked to above, and the rest of the 270 sources in Google Scholar, are conducive to an article on this regulation. James500 (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So write it. The vast majority of those sources are brief mentions of the regulation or sine with dwell test, which are perfectly conducive for inclusion in the main article for appropriate context of development and testing of electronic stability control. Reywas92^Talk 14:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Electronic_stability_control#Regulation: where it is already covered in as much detail as is encyclopedically warranted. Owen× ☎ 15:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy, guideline or consensus that says that more detail is not encyclopedically warranted. Simply claiming that something is "unencyclopedic" is one of the arguments to avoid listed in the essay WP:ATA. James500 (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTEVERYTHING, a section of the policy page Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not explicitly states the following: Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. I invite you to reconsider the accuracy of your comment here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No-one has argued that more detail should be included "solely because it is true or useful". More detail can be included without the article ceasing to be "a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". James500 (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to There is no policy, guideline or consensus that says that more detail is not encyclopedically warranted which is not a correct statement, as written it could be justification for articles of infinite length. And all you've managed to do thus far is add one sentence about a "sine with dwell test" (whatever on earth that even means). What I've yet to see (and what might actually change people's opinions) are sources that give significant coverage to the regulation. What more is there to be said about this regulation? If it can't be expanded beyond a stub it clearly should be redirected to Electronic stability control#regulation per WP:NOPAGE (and that's even generously assuming the regulation is notable, which has yet to be demonstrated either). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are twisting my words. The statement "There is no policy, guideline or consensus that says that more detail is not encyclopedically warranted" does not mean what you claim it means. As far as NOTEVERYTHING is concerned, it is a correct statement because that policy does not forbid the inclusion of "more detail" that is "a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". I did not say "There is no policy, guideline or consensus that says that more detail is not encyclopedically warranted even if it is not a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". If I had meant to say "even if it is not a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject" I would have said so in express words. There is no policy, guideline or consensus that forbids "more detail" only because it is more detail. James500 (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already supplied you with sources that satisfy GNG including [21] [22] [23] and others. What I've yet to see (and what might actually change people's opinions) is any explanation of why the coverage in these sources is allegedly not significant, or why the additional information they contain about this regulation should allegedly not be added to the article. James500 (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And if you had actually read those sources, you would know what the Sine with Dwell test is. James500 (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG, no problem. Mr.choppers | ✎ 00:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stations[edit]

New Cassel station[edit]

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

No evidence of notability - the only source is a listing of all stations on the railroad and only gives it a few sentences. A redirect/merge to New Cassel, New York would be fine. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and New York. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping Thryduulf who deprodded. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from my deprodding rationale If sources cannot be found this should be merged or redirected, probably to the article about the line, rather than deleted. It seems the nominator actually agrees that this should not be deleted, so this seems like an inappropriate AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: I don't have any strong opinion about whether the article is deleted, redirected, or merged (with what meager information is available). However, it seems clear to me that it lacks the notability for an independent article. Given that, I'm confused why AfD wouldn't be an appropriate venue for the community to decide which of those options is best. What would you have recommended I do instead? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AfD should be reserved for when you are actively advocating deletion. In other situations either boldly merge/redirect or start a discussion on the talk page (with notifications to WikiProjects and/or target talk pages as desired). Thryduulf (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What happens is someone then shows up to contest it and say it's a "stealth deletion", so forgive us if we choose to take these articles to AfD. There's no way to avoid people complaining, so I'm afraid you will have to get used to seeing train stations at AfD. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If someone contests a bold action, start a formal discussion. If they contest a discussion to merge or redirect as a "stealth deletion" then they're wrong to put it bluntly - you're not proposing deletion and you've (hopefully) advertised the discussion in the appropriate places. Thryduulf (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the points in favor of AfD is people are notified far more than with any other method of merger or redirection. I always post notification to WT:TRAINS when I propose a merge, and unfortunately those discussions are typically ill-attended. I have been accused (by other editors, not you) of "stealth deletion" by boldy redirecting articles, even though I always respect a challenge and follow up by initiating a discussion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 10:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Main Line (Long Island Rail Road): not notable by itself. Owen× ☎ 20:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nomination. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~either New Cassel, New York, or~~ Main Line (Long Island Rail Road)#Stations per nom. Epicgenius (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I'm striking part of my !vote. On further thought, it would be best if we kept any info about non-notable or marginally-notable stations in the page about the line itself. I see that KG613 has expanded the article, though, and am willing to re-evaluate my !vote. Epicgenius (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pi.1415926535: Sorry for not getting to this earlier (I have been busy with job applications)-I found some more sources. I don't think this should be merged or deleted.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kew Gardens 613: I really appreciate the added sources; unfortunately, it still doesn't pass GNG. Of the eight sources, seven do not provide significant coverage, while Arrts Archives is self-published and does not appear to qualify as a reliable source. Merging would allow the relevant information to be retained. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what you are saying, 99% of all closed train station articles should be deleted and most open station articles should be deleted. While I really wouldn't like that, we should clarify what is/not notable in WP:STATION. What would qualify as significant coverage in your view? Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kew Gardens 613: The relevant section of the notability guideline is WP:SIGCOV. Two different RFCs (August 2019 and July 2022) had clear consensus that train stations do not have inherent notability and are subject to the general notability guideline. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, then, based on those RFCs, are you suggesting that most station articles should be deleted, since it will be very hard to find info beyond what I found for this article. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can only speak to US stations in this regard, but no, I don't think "most" - or even many - should be deleted on notability grounds. As a general rule of thumb, any American mainline station that was open into the public ownership era tends to have sufficient coverage in newspapers and/or historical works to pass GNG. I've only ever found a few exeptions, such as Metra's Heritage Corridor Halsted station (which was redirected without loss of any information). Similarly, NRHP-listed stations and major pre-public-ownership stations tend to also be easy GNG passes. Collectively, those represent the vast majority of the articles we have about American mainline stations. There's only a relatively small number of articles like this that are unlikely to ever pass GNG, and most (like this) can be merged/redirected without loss of any pertinent information. This article is a particularly obscure station: it had a short life, pre-1900, with limited service. It is by no means representative of most other station articles. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Main Line (Long Island Rail Road)#Stations. I can't find any sources with significant coverage that would support a standalone article through Google or multiple historic newspaper archives, though a redirect to the list entry is appropriate. ^Complex/_Rational 17:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cầu Diễn station[edit]

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

Zero sources to meet the GNG. The source cited doesn't mention this station. The only others I could find list it as one among several stations [24][25] and say nothing more. No significant coverage. Toadspike [Talk] 15:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please redirect this to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro). Toadspike [Talk] 15:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and Vietnam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the position data, etc. to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro) and redirect there if sources cannot be found (they're most likely to be in Vietnamese, so do check in that language). There is no reason to delete the information present in the article which will be useful if it is expanded in future. Thryduulf (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge there isn't enough coverage (or content) for a separate article from Line 3 (Hanoi Metro) yet, but there might be in the future. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references from the corresponding article in Vietnamese. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. All these metro station articles can be expanded (and their references improved) using the information already present in the corresponding articles in Vietnamese and other languages. Reviewing relevant articles in other languages is an important part of WP:BEFORE. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per my talk page: I checked the Vietnamese Wikipedia articles for most of these nominations and their sourcing was no better. In this example, there is a map from Hanoi Metro [26], which isn't an independent source and has no information to boot, and this source [27], which doesn't mention the station at all.

Source review on enwiki: Four sources never mention this station [28][29][30][31] (yes, I even watched the full 56-second video). There is also an article which lists the names of eight stations but says nothing more about this station [32].

I assume good faith when people say sources exist somewhere, but in this case there are even fewer sources there and none are useful for notability. I do not appreciate the casting of aspersions about my BEFORE checks. Toadspike [Talk] 06:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go further than Toadspike. You are completely out of line, Eastmain. You make a habit of dumping any source you find online and then saying keep without actually reading them, and have an idea of what constitutes significant coverage that is utterly out of line with community consensus. Your AfD match rate is below 60%, while Toadspike is at nearly 90%. If anyone needs to improve their behavior at AfD, it is you (I'm at 83%, if you're wondering). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain House Community station[edit]

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

This proposed commuter train station does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NSTATION Sources 1, 4, and 5 have WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of this planned station in the broader context of the Valley Link system; sources 2 and 3 are primary sources. With this station not scheduled to open until 2028 at the earliest, a standalone article is WP:TOOSOON. I propose to redirect this page to Valley Link until there is sufficient SIGCOV in reliable sources to warrant a standalone page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Stations, and California. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nomination. Appears to be too soon for a standalone article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are already lots of references, and their number and length will grow as designs are finalized and coverage of the project and individual stations continues. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously didn't read them as none of the independent sources say more than a sentence or two about the station, and you're making a very bold assumption about a station not expected to open until near the end of the decade. Valley Link already exists. But why let facts get in the way of your personal feelings? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:FUTURE "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." According to the sources, "The Valley Link project has been awarded $25 million by the state.That funding will go toward Valley Link’s first phase — the 26-mile section from the Pleasanton BART station to the proposed Mountain House station. The overall project is expected to cost $3.6 billion." — Maile (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of how certain the WP:FUTURE is, the station still has to pass the WP:SIGCOV test to be notable, and it doesn't -- it has passing references in sources focused on the whole system. It will someday, but until then, a redirect is appropriate. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation Proposed deletions[edit]

None at present

Transportation-related Images and media for Deletion[edit]

None at present

Transportation-related Miscellany for deletion[edit]

None at present

Transportation-related Templates for Deletion[edit]

None at present

Transportation-related Categories for Discussion[edit]

None at present

Transportation-related Deletion Review[edit]

None at present