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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Clearwater, British Columbia#Transportation. Star Mississippi 02:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clearwater station (British Columbia)

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

No evidence of WP:SIGCOV. No reliable secondary sources cited in the article. WP:N. This "station" is nothing more than a line in a timetable and a dot on a map. 162 etc. (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Clearwater, British Columbia § Transportation: This seems like a reasonable WP:ATD, plus I have no luck finding significant coverage to justify the station's noability. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 07:46, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: per EditorGirl. I'm going to take a peek at other stations that might not meet notability either. Moritoriko (talk) 06:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per EditorGirl.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Lacks evidence for WP:SIGCOV. No reliable secondary sources . Redirect to appropriate target as suggested above by other editors. WikiMentor01 (talk) 06:25, 30 April 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.

Rail transport periodical

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

Unsourced article which admits it is a "tabulation for periodicals which do not have their own articles" - a blatant end-run round WP:GNG and a useless inclusion criteria. It is full of personal opinions and original research. While at least some of these periodicals do exist, there is no way for a reader to tell if they all do. Opolito (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge into List of rail transport–related periodicals. Expanding the latter into (well-cited) tables with ISSN, publisher, and start/end dates would be valuable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't we supposed to improve this article before creating the list? I think that list should be merged into this article instead. Koshuri ^(グ) 13:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Flight 052P

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

WP:NOTNEWS. A landing accident with no casualities created by a user who makes stub articles that usually get deleted. -Bloxzge 025 ツ — Preceding undated comment added 2:02, 21 April 2024 (EDT)

Delete per nom and WP:NEVENT, existing summary at Gao International Airport is ample coverage of this non-notable event. Carguychris (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Africa. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete, but...~~ the article creator had already agreed to have it redirected, why not let the redirect stand instead? –FlyingAce^✈hello 17:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had attempted to redirect the article on mobile but I somehow messed it up so the article (which was supposed to be a redirect) remained an article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to redirect, since the event is discussed in the article for the airport. –FlyingAce^✈hello 00:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gao International Airport#Accidents and incidents as an alternative to deletion – Just as a note, I don't think it really matters who created the article or what the state of the articles are as we're judging an event's notability. – Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT – Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary in nature since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have significant, in-depth, nor sustained continued coverage of the event itself with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident.^[b] In addition, while a final report has been released along with recommendations, I have been unable to find any sort of follow up to the recommendations issued, failing WP:LASTING. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Aviationwikiflight. nf utvol (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect non-notable overrun, redirect seems a fine AtD. SportingFlyer T·C 14:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^ A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.
^ Per WP:GNG, WP:WHYN and WP:EVENTCRIT, we would need significant secondary coverage^[a] and/or in-depth coverage of the event. None of the sources really go beyond reporting that the plane crashed and the subsequent reactions like this or this. Then there's this article by FlightGlobal but it's just repeating what Rosaviatsia released in a statement and there's no actual analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis behind it, hence the majority of sources are primary. This fails WP:NOTNEWS#1 which states that 'Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source, which is basically what the news articles are. There's also no continued coverage of the accident post-August 2020.

Redirect to Gao International Airport#Accidents and incidents FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2025 (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/2025 April 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Street

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

This is one of several very tiny side-street connecting two notable roads in Hong Kong. I have searched for WP:SIGCOV in English and Chinese and have not been able to do more than verify that it exists. The Chinese version of this article doesn't contain any further sources to help. I think we could mention it Queen's Road, Hong Kong#Queen's Road East but from what I can find there isn't a lot to add except that it's one of multiple small alley ways connecting two major roads. Zzz plant (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Hong Kong. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It is just a minor street. This source mentions that in 1917 Tsui In Lane was widened and renamed Anton Street. This source states that it is named after Charles Edward Anton, Director of Jardine, Matheson & Co. Other sources give it passing mentions. One approach would be to redirect it to Queen's Road East#Anton Street, then expand the entry in the list of intersections in that article as
- (N) > junction with {{anchor|Anton Street}} '''Anton Street''', a short road leading north to [[Hennessy Road]]. Created in 1917 by widening Tsui In Lane.<ref...>... Named after [[Charles Edward Anton]], Director of Jardine, Matheson & Co.<ref....>

That way the gazetteer-type information would be preserved. The other minor streets along Queen's Road East could be treated the same way. Probably less effort to boldly merge them into Queen's Road East than to put them through AfD. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems a good idea, but I think it would look a little undue weighty in that big road article unless all of the intersections were extended beyond a line summary.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. All the side roads should be done, including notable ones that retain their own article and ones that turn into redirects. I am not sure I have the energy to do it. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Queen's Road East#Anton Street as suggested by Aymatth2 per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 07:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - to elaborate slightly on my rationale -WP:Articles_for_deletion/St._Francis_Street and WP:Articles for deletion/Wood Road are similar road noms which ended in delete. If you look up Anton St on g-maps you will see it is an almost comically tiny side street, and the only real facts available are that it 1) is one of many alleys in Hong Kong connecting two notable roads and 2) was named after someone notable. My view is that the existing mentions in articlespace are sufficient, and per WP:NOTDIRECTORY I weakly disagree that there is value to preserving the page history via a merge. Zzz plant (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Those AfDs were not well-attended and were from six years ago so are not good precedent to argue against a merge. Under Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, when there is a good redirect or merge target as Aymatth2 has identified, that is preferable to deletion. Another merge target could be Charles Edward Anton, the namesake of the street, whose article already mentions the street. Cunard (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to merge to Queen's Road East#Anton Street, since the purpose is to preserve gazeteer-type information, and Queen's Road East is the natural gazeteer parent. I have rearranged Queen's Road East a bit and added an anchor for Anton Street. I am not sure that the table format is ideal for a phone though. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 15:03, 30 April 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 00:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Highlands Pier

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

I can't find any proof that this pier was actually built, much less that it meets GNG. As of this version:

Sources 1 and 2 establish that Flemm applied to build the pier, but not that it was actually built. (The claim in the article that the Army Corps built the pier is a misinterpretation of these sources.)
Source 3 is about a completely different pier over a mile away from the location described in sources 1 and 2
Source 4 is a municipal code listing that does not mention this specific pier at all.
Sources 5 and 6 are general tourist information sites that do not mention this specific pier at all.

Even if the pier was built, it seems unlikely that it would pass GNG. There are dozens of similar piers on this river. A BEFORE search fails to find any significant coverage - or indeed any coverage but sources 1 and 2 - about this pier. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New Jersey. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are some old ferry advertisements mentioning an "Atlantic Highlands Pier" in NJ but it seems like it's referring to a pier that existed by the 1920s[1](p.140) so that doesn't even match up with the building date in the article. Zzz plant (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO PI! I met you about late summer of 2023, just a short time after I started editing here! You were fantastic, told me you were passionate about help files and to ping you if I needed help, but I didn't even know what that was or how to find you again, haha! Anyway...

Delete. Is this "amusement park pier" the one in your link? Maybe this is it too. This detailed description predates what we want, I'm guessing... I'm with you. I'm betting his pier never got built. Historic aerial photos south of the bridge in the decades after the 1940s don't show anything like an amusement pier.

Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 09:46, 23 April 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.

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

The result was redirect‎ to B roads in Zone 1 of the Great Britain numbering scheme. Consensus is against a standalone article, but I don't see objections to a redirect. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B1228 road (England)

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

Wikipedia is not a road atlas of the UK. Absolutely no reason given why this short bit of road is in any way noteworthy. TheLongTone (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GoldRomean (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it should stay as I only had a few minutes to write it. It's part of WikiProject Highways, so I see no reason to delete it. Starfall2015 (talk) 07:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In case this page was kept, Kindly move the page to B1228 road. This article includes an unnessesary disambiguation. Thank You and no opinion on the AFD itself. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't do that as there is already a page there. Starfall2015 (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to B roads in Zone 1 of the Great Britain numbering scheme This seems to be a regional road, and per WP:GEOROAD, they do not get the automatic "is typically notable" feature. I did not find any sources that didn't seem routine during a Google search. Jumpytoo Talk 03:45, 28 April 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arne Watle

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

Biography of non-notable individual. Has been tagged as potentially failing to meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline since June 2013. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 05:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Transportation, and Norway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails WP:NBIO, and my WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing useful. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 07:54, 22 April 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.

Ghana Highways Authority

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

Not notable, promotional article Loewstisch (talk) 09:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's notable or not I'm not sure (I don't know how we assess the notability of government agencies) but the article is not in the slightest bit promotional. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Ministry of Roads and Highways (Ghana) of which this is a department. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Loewstisch: Did you assess (WP:BEFORE) the extensive press coverage since 1974 to present? MarioGom (talk) 08:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Government agencies are usually considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Lynn to Avondale shared path

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

I cannot find any RS providing SIGCOV, just news releases covering the announcement. The current sourcing is just two different advocacy groups and Auckland Transport. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. This really only had coverage at local level. Ajf773 (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to either Transport in Auckland#Walking and cycling or Cycling in Auckland, which does mention a 1998 "Walking and Cycling Plan" in Cycling in Auckland#Attitudes. There does not seem to be an article about pathways in Auckland, which would be a good merge target. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cycling in Auckland#Facilities. I think the lack of coverage is being overstated, as there is more than "just news releases." I also would describe Greater Auckland as more of an urbanism-focused blog than an advocacy group and will point out that one of the sources from them was actually a guest post by a local board member (not that it really changes anything). Nonetheless, I agree that it's not enough to warrant its own article. Traumnovelle, if you're the one doing the merging, please merge more than just one to two sentences this time or let someone else do it (seeing as Gadfium also thought you didn't merge enough content on another article recently). Cycling in Auckland is probably a good merge target for now, seeing as it gets into the specifics a bit too much for Transport in Auckland. MangoMan11 (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stations

Raina railway station

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

Can't find anything about this railway station in Pakistan. I did find an article about a railway station that happens to be called "Raina", but it is located in West Bengal (India), not Pakistan.

And I'm not entirely sure if that article is even reliable.

(Edit: another article about the Indian railway station, still nothing for the Pakistan one though) ApexParagon (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything to satisfy WP:V. Jumpytoo Talk 05:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The archived Pakistan Railways site at https://web.archive.org/web/20140224124331/http://pakrail.com/ has a list of stations in alphabetical order, and when you scroll down to Raina, you see "Raina (Closed)". Google Maps shows a town or village named Raina in Pakistan. There is no Raina, Pakistan article, but perhaps there is in the Urdu Wikipedia. I don't see a railway line there, though. Perhaps there was a railway line and station there once. Perhaps there is more than one way to transliterate the Urdu name. LeapTorchGear (talk) 09:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kinogama station

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

Flag stop on the Sudbury-White line, possible redirect to the unincorporated place of the same name instead. Nothing notable about this sometimes stop. Moritoriko (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Transportation, and Canada. Moritoriko (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kinogama, Ontario: Barely any WP:SIGCOV found in my WP:BEFORE search. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if there is a better way to deal with articles for redirects than bringing them to AfD I would like to know Moritoriko (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the current AfDs succeed, you can try WP:BOLD redirection and see if anyone contests them. Jumpytoo Talk 01:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kinogama, Ontario, but the navigational templates should be moved over. Looking at the maps there nothing but forest, no structure or population or anything. Jumpytoo Talk 01:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pikwitonei station

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

This flag stop is not notable, it is already mentioned at the population center of the same name. Moritoriko (talk) 07:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Transportation, and Canada. Moritoriko (talk) 07:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pikwitonei, as that page is just as short as the station, and in the process creating a new section titled "Transportation". As for Pikwitonei Station, not much anything useful found in my WP:BEFORE search, and its existing sources are somewhat reasonably reliable (but half of them are non-independent to the station). EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - see the earlier, extensive discussion about all the stations on this line at:

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Silcox station

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)}<

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

The result was redirect‎ to Clearwater, British Columbia#Transportation. Star Mississippi 02:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clearwater station (British Columbia)

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

No evidence of WP:SIGCOV. No reliable secondary sources cited in the article. WP:N. This "station" is nothing more than a line in a timetable and a dot on a map. 162 etc. (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Clearwater, British Columbia § Transportation: This seems like a reasonable WP:ATD, plus I have no luck finding significant coverage to justify the station's noability. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 07:46, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: per EditorGirl. I'm going to take a peek at other stations that might not meet notability either. Moritoriko (talk) 06:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per EditorGirl.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Lacks evidence for WP:SIGCOV. No reliable secondary sources . Redirect to appropriate target as suggested above by other editors. WikiMentor01 (talk) 06:25, 30 April 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.

Transportation Proposed deletions

Light train (via WP:PROD on 31 March 2025)

Transportation-related Images and media for Deletion

None at present

Transportation-related Miscellany for deletion

None at present

Transportation-related Templates for Deletion

None at present

Transportation-related Categories for Discussion

None at present

Transportation-related Deletion Review

None at present

Transportation-related Redirects for Discussion

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

[1] A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.

[2] Per WP:GNG, WP:WHYN and WP:EVENTCRIT, we would need significant secondary coverage^[a] and/or in-depth coverage of the event. None of the sources really go beyond reporting that the plane crashed and the subsequent reactions like this or this. Then there's this article by FlightGlobal but it's just repeating what Rosaviatsia released in a statement and there's no actual analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis behind it, hence the majority of sources are primary. This fails WP:NOTNEWS#1 which states that 'Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source, which is basically what the news articles are. There's also no continued coverage of the accident post-August 2020.

[b]

[a]