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

2025 Minehead school coach crash

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events, whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, United Kingdom, and England. XYZ1233212 (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:NOTNEWS. I don't know why people think every bus accident is appropriate but it's very unlikely that reporting on this three day old event is going to be lasting. Mangoe (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably a case where it would have been wise to WP:DELAY until the lasting significance (or likely lack thereof) becomes apparent. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and caution should be taken basing articles off recent breaking news events. Dfadden (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ground propulsion

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

When I search the results are mostly about pushing aircraft not the definition in the article Chidgk1 (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

APCOA Parking

AfDs for this article:

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

Another entry in the saga of UPE content is this German parking management company. The article seems to present only primary sources and routine coverage, and I am unsure if notability can be established to comply with WP:NCORP. MediaKyle (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Germany. MediaKyle (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major company operating throughout Europe. Plenty of sourcing available. Satisfies WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People's Express

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

Non-notable and very small English independent bus operator which serves as more of a footnote in the history of parent Probus Management. Single paragraph in the 'history' section refers to People's Express, the rest, besides a change of trading name, refers to Probus and its subsequent acquisition by Go-Ahead/Diamond. Hullian111 (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Transportation. Hullian111 (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage in independent sources. Most of what I can find refers to the airline, as such fails GNG and NCORP. As it is, it's halfway to a fork of Probus Managment. LightlySeared (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

M-157 (Michigan highway)

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

Arguments were made in this discussion that this article subject is not notable because all sourcing are maps or similar. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Transportation. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, it's not just sourced to maps, and we generally keep articles about state highways. I'd be a merge, because we shouldn't lose this information even if it's not notable enough for a stand-alone page, but I'm not sure what a good merge target is. If there is no good merge target, it should be an WP:IAR keep, as there's nothing wrong with this article. SportingFlyer T·C 13:46, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it lacks independent sigcov then there is something wrong with it. We don't actually generally keep articles about state highways, at least not in the last few years. They aren't presumed notable and there really isn't any information in there that would be missed. In terms of whats wrong with it... It also runs afoul of WP:NOT, specifically 2.6 and 2.10 Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It could be merged into List of state trunkline highways in Michigan — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to be more specific with those WP:NOTs... SportingFlyer T·C 18:56, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They don't appear to apply to you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also it's a completely factual, decently referenced little stub. It's just not referenced well enough for notability reasons. The important thing here is not to lose some of the important content, including year it was opened and designated, and the brief history. If there's no good merge target that lets us retain that information, then there's no real problem with keeping it as it is. SportingFlyer T·C 19:00, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not decently referenced, that would be the main problem. That isn't important content, its not even clear that it would be due for inclusion on another page... Nothing indicates that the dates and history should be on wikipedia beyond what is already at List of state trunkline highways in Michigan... And the history can't be merged because its OR, we'd actually need a source for that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge, the lack of independent sigcov besides the passing mention in the compilation of short roads article means that we don't have any policy grounds besides IAR to keep this article and IAR only applies to improvements of the encyclopedia and the encyclopedia would be improved by deleting or merging this article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of state trunkline highways in Michigan. Ref. 6 looks fine, but the others are primary and trivial, and for such a short rural road I doubt better sourcing can be found. But should appear somewhere on WP. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:5P1 says: ikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers (emphasis added). Lists of major state highways are part of gazetteers. As long as WP:V is satisfied, then major state highways have traditionally been kept. The continual tightening of "but notability" is a problem. The encyclopedia would most certainly not be improved by deleting or merging this article - this is not about the 9001th species of Pokemon. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:26, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger: this is not a deletion discussion for a list of state highways or a major state highway. This is a discussion about a single minor state highway. Can you make an argument that fits this context? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to List of state trunkline highways in Michigan. Combining features of gazetteers does not mean notability and significant coverage is thrown in the trash for concepts that may be part of gazetteers. Our lists can also include the features of gazetteers. I do not believe there is enough coverage of this topic for there to be a standalone article. Reywas92^Talk 15:32, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of state trunkline highways in Michigan: It does seem (and I admittedly say this reluctantly) that this is yet another instance where a topic area's longtime/prior inclusion standards (and, more specifically, its stances on the type of sourcing that confers standalone notability) appears to be out of alignment with Wikipedia's sitewide standards. (Concerns about these notability and sourcing issues led a number of editors in this topic area to fork a few years back, providing an alternative outlet for any articles in the topic area that might not make the cut here anymore.) I'm not sure there's anything within that list's scope that isn't already there to be merged in, but that obviously does not preclude redirecting as an alternative to deletion. (As for the prior assertion that we generally keep articles about state highways, a non-exhaustive look at the delsort archives for transportation indicates that they have not come to AfD that often in the first place, and the most recent US one, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ohio State Route 778, was a "merge" to a list that quickly turned into a simple BLAR because there wasn't really anything to merge; as has already been suggested, I also can't imagine that a one-mile short trunkline highway falls under any major state highway definition.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:46, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the merge is that we'd lose information based on that other page - we used to have lists of state highways that weren't just functional spreadsheets which went into more detail for routes which weren't notable enough for their own pages. What happened to those? SportingFlyer T·C 09:19, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But why is that a problem? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, just because information exists doesn't mean that its due for inclusion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In my searches for sources, I found only one source that provided significant coverage of M-157:
1. Gilchrist, Tom (1990-02-03). "Some Michigan roads are only for the lonely, statistics reveal" (pages 1 and 2). The Saginaw News. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2025-07-21. Retrieved 2025-07-21 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "It's lonely along M-157 east of Prudenville. In fact, it's the loneliest stretch of highway in Michigan. ... But M-157 in Roscommon County, a 1-mile highway connecting M-18 and M-55, is just as remote. Prior to the construction of Interstate 75, motorists traveled M- 157 on the way north to Roscommon but now it has relatively no use, said William E. Buckrop, supervisor of Denton Township in Roscommon County. ... The few people traveling regularly on M-157 live on Lake James and use the highway when driving north to Roscommon, Buckrop said. State highway department statistics surveying thousands of spots along state and federal highways in Michigan show that an average of about 300 vehicles a day traveled M-157 in 1988, about the same average number of vehicles traveling on M-48 near Goetzville."
If a second source that provided significant coverage could be found, M-157 would meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 05:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quinjet

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

While this one has a tiny reception section, except for [1] it's all listicles and mentions in passing, and even the linked Mary Sue article is poor - it talks mostly about plans for a theme park attraction, and its discussion of the item in question is rathers superficial (effectively, all useful content is quoted in our article - one sentence or so, with the claim that this is iconic/etc because of a wild guess proposed by the writer...). Meh. My BEFORE failed to find anything better. As such, I fear this fails WP:GNG, being just a barely-above-stub list of appearances and plot summary, plus an inadequate reception section. Per WP:ATD-M, I suggest this is merged to Features of the Marvel Universe or perhaps Avengers (comics). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and Transportation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. There aren't more than WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs of this topic in the resources, failing WP:GNG. The WP:SIGCOV is about Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe#Vehicles, which is an acceptable WP:ATD target. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:16, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Features list per nom, since that seems to be the best place to mention this subject at present. Little to no coverage for the Jet specifically. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:17, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would Keep, but that's just me. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hyperbolick Can you provide a rationale? WP:NOTAVOTE, WP:ILIKEIT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
more just a gut instinct with this showing up a lot in universe. Not losing sleep over it. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe#Vehicles per WP:ATD-M, as already suggested in the nomination. Why are we leading a deletion discussion in the first place when merging has already been identified as an alternative? WP:Deletion policy says "If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page" (emphasis mine). We do have a reception section here. Based on the current sources (no time to do a search myself) this may be inadequate for a stand-alone article, but from an encylopedic point of view this surely is preferable to the plot-summary we currently have at the target. A pure redirect would be a step backwards in terms of quality. Daranios (talk) 09:47, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe#Vehicles per WP:ATD-M. The nominator is open to that and so are other !voters. People will surely search for this but I agree that the minor quotes from a few sources don't give us a worthwhile article. Archrogue (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala State Transport Employees Front

AfDs for this article:

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

Last year Goldsztajn said they needed more time - perhaps not notable Chidgk1 (talk) 11:51, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:51, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:54, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Brawley Cattle Call Park crash

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

This article is not about a notable subject. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Constant314 (talk) 07:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Covered locally extensively for a few days, but then not much after that, especially on a national level. Raskuly (talk) 08:09, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS Nayyn (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: under WP:NEVENT. I appreciate Desert IV's contributions to this article but honestly it seems like any run-of-the-mill car crash. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 13:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Onkaparinga Valley Road

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

Fails WP:GEOROAD. Only sources provided are google maps and government of South Australia map layers. LibStar (talk) 02:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. LibStar (talk) 02:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found newspaper articles documenting collisions and mentions in fictional books but I don't see any in-depth coverage of the road itself in g-news, g-books, newspapers.com, or PressReader. Zzz plant (talk) 04:06, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm the same as Zzz. I couldn't find any independent secondary sources which address the subject directly and in depth. TarnishedPath^talk 07:47, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:15, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of eponymous roads in Bengaluru

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

Prod removed, I honestly don't see how this passes WP:NLIST, feels like List craft to me. We have Category:Lists of roads named after people which should be fine for category grouping. Govvy (talk) 09:59, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Lists, and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:04, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The mentioned category seems enough. Azuredivay (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As much as I love that this exists, it probably shouldn't be more than a category. – Ike Lek (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hyperspecific for this topic Metallurgist (talk) 22:30, 16 July 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.

2025 Zeusch Aviation Beechcraft King Air crash

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events, whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Transportation, and United Kingdom. XYZ1233212 (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sure I understand but could you elaborate how this is any different from the other crashes i mentioned on the See also section? An exact replica of this plane crash was back in 2017 same result and same plane model; 2017 Essendon Airport Beechcraft King Air crash. As I said but I also want to hear from other experienced Wikipedian editors on what they think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megabyte21 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided some information about previous aviation articles below that were created very quickly, followed by a swift AfD. This one falls into the same WP:DELAY category. 11WB (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can you claim it is An exact replica of this plane crash was back in 2017 same result and same plane model; 2017 Essendon Airport Beechcraft King Air crash? The investigation has obly just begun and hasnt reached a single conclusion about probably cause. Sure there are some obvious similarities, but an encyclopedia needs to be based on facts not speculation. Dfadden (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This incident likely resulted in many fatalities, probably in the double-digits and shut down a major airport. Because of that, this article is notable and it does not fall under point 4. Cyrobyte (talk) 07:40, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Four dead, not "double-digits". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it matters. Any decent closer would discard WP:BIGNUMBER arguments before determining consensus. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 15:28, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and Redirect. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON might be worth considering here. The event literally just happened, there's no way of knowing whether or not this will have any lasting coverage or wider impact. As of right now it's a tragic accident that may, or may not, have sufficient coverage in the upcoming weeks and months to justify a standalone article. Send it to draft now for incubation, and put a redirect to London Southend Airport#Accidents and incidents in the meantime. nf utvol (talk) 12:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to closer. There appears to be a raft of "Keep" comments that are nothing more than votes, or do not make any policy-based arguments and are not substantially different from the examples listed in WP:ATA. nf utvol (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I concur with the above. Also, many of the arguments in favour of keeping are grounded entirely in recentism, which while well intentioned, seems to lack informed consideration of content policies based on existing consensus. Dfadden (talk) 13:30, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a very notable event as there has been significant worldwide news coverage on this aviation accident (not just on UK news). Think of the helicopter that crashed in Manhattan earlier this year. Although it was a flight with only a few passengers, it still gained significant news coverage. This one is the same as this. Prothe1st (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all aviation accidents get news coverage, often worldwide especially if there are fatalities, with a burst of coverage in the immediate aftermath of the accident, and maybe another burst when the accident investigation report is issued. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Light aircraft crashes very rarely get any WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE beyond that initial news cycle, and it is equally rare to see any WP:LASTING effects (such as changes to aircraft or airport procedures). The article can always be recreated if such continued coverage or lasting effects do occur. But in the meantime, this crash clearly falls under WP:EVENTCRIT#4: Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents [...]) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As of right now, london southend airport is still closed and will remain closed “until further notice” according to news reports. It has been two days since it’s happened and this crash clearly affects a lot of people such as those travelling or returning to/from holiday from this airport by airlines like easyjet. Also is going to cost easyjet quite a bit of money. So that is also why it further gives this event additional enduring significance to make it a notable event. Also if you read some of the other comments, you can see that someone said it’s the deadliest aviation accident in the uk since the helicopter crash in 2018 in Leicester, and also the deadliest airplane crash since the plane crash in shoreham. Prothe1st (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Closure of a relatively minor airport for a few days, and the associated short-term impact on passengers and airlines, are unimportant with regard to notability. Imagine yourself 10 years from now when assessing their importance. Likewise, being the deadliest accident since the last deadlier one is not in itself indicative of notability! Rosbif73 (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable incident, four confirmed dead and airport closed for two days. Lots of significant news coverage. Definitely passes WP:GNG. This is Paul (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This seems to have been moved since the afd discussion was created. This is Paul (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Unsure of the policy on this, but the article in question is now called Zeusch Aviation Flight 1. I am unable to comment on notability yet as this article was only created today and then subsequently nominated for deletion 90 minutes later. (Similar occurrences happened here, here and here). I think WP:DELAY should apply to those 3 examples and this AfD. 11WB (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the crash took place less than 12 hours ago, and the article name has changed, along with information being updated regularly, I have added the recentevent tag to the article to reflect this. I think this should be the case going forward for articles created so soon after the event. 11WB (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that it should follow WP:DELAY, which says It is recommended that editors start a section about the event within an existing article on a related topic if possible, which may later be split into its own article if the coverage suggests that the event is independently notable. This should be a merge to London Southend Airport. An article about an event should not have its own article until there is sustained secondary coverage, which it definitely does not at this point. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 15:27, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*I second this. Redirect (as the information is already there) to London Southend Airport#Accidents and incidents for the time being, until a clear need for a standalone article is shown. 11WB (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the newer comments for keep below, I am reconsidering my vote. I think in this instance I will withdraw my vote for redirection and change it to keep based on @Harrz's point regarding this being the most deadly UK aviation accident since the 2018 Leicester helicopter crash. 11WB (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to London Southend Airport#Accidents and incidents. Light aircraft crashes are rarely notable and there are no reasons to suspect this one will be. Usual caveats apply: in the unlikely event that we do see significant sustained coverage beyond the initial news cycle, or other notability factors come to light, it would be possible to recreate an article at that time. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then explain to me why you deleted it 2000 Teheran Airport collision, Red Air Flight 203, 2009 F-27 Indonesian Air Force crash, Boston Logan runway incursion, O'Hare runway incursion? Why? Szymondro1123 (talk) 11:33, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And West Coast Airlines F-27 crash Szymondro1123 (talk) 12:47, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And 748 Air Services crash Szymondro1123 (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to argue that we should keep this article because other "similar" incidents have articles? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument in a deletion discussion. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Although it may look like it isn't notable, it is since 4 people are dead, and London Southend Airport had to close for 2 days. Another thing is that the article was just recently created, give it some time! Subbie2010 (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i agree with you Szymondro1123 (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It occurred to me that this could, or maybe should, have been created in WikiNews – but I could not find this event reported there. On balance, since this article already exists, I vote to keep – at least for now and we can revisit notability at a later date, after the accident report has been submitted. While other fatal aircraft accidents may not (yet) have their own Wiki page, I am sympathetic to having Wiki pages for such fatal aircraft accidents as a balanced and independent repository of records of such events.

Enquire (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Szymondro1123 (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with you, especially since there are other similar light aircraft crashes with their own article:

WittypediaEditor (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WittypediaEditor: The existence of other articles is no reason to keep or delete this article. Take a look at WP:WHATABOUT, which covers this in more depth. Either way, in the first two articles you mentioned, they exhibited a level of sustained coverage that lends notability to their subjects. The third should probably be brought to AfD for failing to have sustained coverage (all the coverage that is referenced appears to be from the day of or day after the crash, save for the final investigation report which was released a year later). nf utvol (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I think it is too early to decide since it just happened. It has got a lot of attention for crashing at a major airport. On the other hand, only 4 people died, and it was a smaller aircraft. I don't think anybody famous was onboard. But I am still split on whether this should get deleted or not. Zaptain United (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article was created rapidly. Whilst I think the accident will likely be notable eventually, at the moment it's definitely too early to rely on preliminary reporting for an entire article. 11WB (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: definitely notable - being reported worldwide, shut down an international airport indefinitely and there will definitely be lasting coverage as there is an ongoing investigation and this is the deadliest aviation accident in the UK since 2018 (Leicester), the deadliest plane crash in the UK since 2015 (Shoreham) and the deadliest commercial plane crash in the UK since 2008 or 1999 (Biggin Hill or Glasgow - not sure); some of those may be incorrect, if so I am sorry! harrz ^talk 00:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable enough for inclusion. Wjfox2005 (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to London Southend Airport#Accidents and incidents. No indication that this is anything other than a non-notable accident with minimal loss of life. Celjski Grad (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
okay. i'm going to go for keep 208.161.12.215 (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or Incubate until after the current news spike has settled down and some actual factual information emerges about the WP:LASTING significance of this accident. There is a lot of coverage right now (plane crashes are always hot news items), but WP:EVENT requires more than this to establish notability and its a good idea to WP:DELAY to see if that threshhold will be met since wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In the meantime would support a mention in the London Southend Airport accidents and incidents section Dfadden (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i don't know what the hell happened. keep for a while until we know what the hell happened 208.161.12.215 (talk) 20:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the complete opposite of what the policy says we should do! If we dont know what the hell happened, then we shouldnt be making articles in an encyclopedia that should be factual! Wikipedia is not a news blog! Dfadden (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policy is The worst in world! Szymondro1123 (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Szymondro1123: If you find policy to be bad, then I suggest you take it to the appropriate talk page and advocate for changes. Complaining about it here is, at best, immature, and at worst, a sign that you're not here to build an encyclopedia. nf utvol (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm stays on keep Szymondro1123 (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
soon all the plane crashes will be removed if you are going in this direction Szymondro1123 (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Os ari us 22:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant crash, closed the airport for two days, and four dead. This is not a minor news story, it has been reported internationally; WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. Also keep per Harrz's comment about this being the most deadly UK aviation accident since 2018. Cagliost (talk) 10:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. Szymondro1123 (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article was only recently created less than a week ago and there aren't that much citations right now but when there are more citations, it might be worth to keep this article. 2A0A:EF40:5BD:C501:A4D0:1AFF:FE05:7D0F (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Szymondro1123 (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or Draftify An important airport closure for 2 days it’s not a normal thing on aviation accidents, but I’m still not sure about WP:LASTING (thinking about that is WP:CRYSTAL), but for right now, Im fine with a weak keep, Im going to see the coverage of this like a month later to see if it passes WP:LASTING. Protoeus (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No relevant sources since a week ago, fails WP:LASTING. Protoeus (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, but likely Redirect to a list later. I reviewed the Notability Essays based on the arguments presented above and it seems to me that small accidents fall close to the edge of notability. WP:EVENTCRITERIA clearly states that routine news events (including most accidents) are not notable unless something gives them enduring significance. This article, and most articles like it, don't have overt enduring significance. The reason I think that's close to the edge of notability is because I value the overall sum of accident information. I think they are notable in concert. However, my personal beliefs are insufficient criteria for keeping, and the essays seem to say that articles which are only useful in concert with other articles are more appropriately aggregated in lists. Therefore, I believe this article may as well be kept for the time being to let its significance play out, but if nothing changes it must eventually be redirected to an appropriate list. There's a lot of similar articles that need this treatment, as well. -Baltarstar (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that an article must be notable NOW in order to be kept: we can't guess today whether the subject will become notable at some point in the future. If additional factors giving an event enduring significance come to light later, a deleted article can always be recreated. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small GA aircraft, no wikinotable people involved. This can be adequately covered at the article on London Southend Airport. Mjroots (talk) 12:10, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article - it's a commercial aircraft which suffered a whole loss and killed all occupants aboard. For the people saying delete, then please delete all of the incidents and accidents involving caravans etc. to keep your argument consistent. The ACFT involved is a MEA. Furthermore, its occupants consisted of both pax. and crew. Deleting this article makes no sense. I recommend strongly keeping it.

Cheers. Captain N334AA (talk) 05:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's all good and well, but on what WP:POLICY are you making that argument? Are you able to provide sources that indicate sustained significant coverage of the event? If not, then why shouldn't this should be draftified until coverage exists, with a redirect to the airport's accidents and incidents page in the meantime? nf utvol (talk) 14:34, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to London Southend Airport#Accidents and incidents as an alternative to deletion per WP:GNG 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 since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. 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) 14:24, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colomi bus crash

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. Per WP:NOPAGE, this is better covered at List of traffic collisions (2000–present), Route 7 (Bolivia), or Colomi. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:54, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Bolivia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:54, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 02:13, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete All sourcing is day-of news reports, so WP:NOTNEWS surely applies. Mangoe (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Joquicingo bus crash

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. Per WP:NOPAGE, this is better covered at List of traffic collisions (2000–present), Joquicingo, or possibly an article for the highway if it is independently notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:54, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Mexico. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:54, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of traffic collisions (2000–present). Moondragon21 (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete Judging from the numbers of articles passing through here, bus accidents are fairly common, and the sources are all from shortly after the incident, so we're in WP:NOTNEWS territory. Mangoe (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fujairah National Group

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

I would have draftified this but it’s long past the 90 day limit so bringing here for consensus. I’m not sure about notability and my preference is to send to draft for possible improvement. . Mccapra (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United Arab Emirates. Mccapra (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Health and fitness, Companies, Travel and tourism, Education, Engineering, Aviation, and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - far too much promotional material and too few citations. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2031 in rail transport

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

Way too early to have an article here, a lot of these events are very likely to change and this ends up being a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Sophisticatedevening🐞^(talk) 19:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Public transit is pretty intensively planned, not speculated. Everything here is sourced, and if their opening is delayed, that can be updated. Admittedly 2031 is a bit further out, perhaps it can be merged with the 2030 list for 2030s or limited to those having begun construction. Reywas92^Talk 14:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Azuredivay (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - this is getting on the outside of specific planning, and there are no notable projects in the article that are scheduled to go live with a specific month, only a 12-month period for finishing. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2038 in public domain, where there was consensus about keeping through 2034 in public domain, but no consensus on 2035 in public domain, which was kept by default. Bearian (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as long as points on this subject are properly cited and clearly noted that these are tentative dates (even additionally to the note auto-generated in the lead section with Future year in rail transport), they have encyclopedic value. -MJ (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per my arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2032 in rail transport. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as 2032 and looks like consensus is up to 2030. Metallurgist (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:CRYSTALBALL is clear. The article is full of verifiable anticipated events, almost certain to take place. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete Eventually this will be largely deleted anyway and replaced by a list of things that actually occurred in that year, most of which will not be facility openings. Public works projects are notoriously subject to delays, especially when we're talking six years out. Some will take place on time, and some will be delayed into a later year, and some will never be completed. If we are going to keep this, then I think we would have to add to all the schedule failures, " but that didn't happen." But it would be better to wait until 2031 and record what actually happened. Mangoe (talk) 02:56, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mangoe. The article is not full of verifiable anticipated events, almost certain to take place, as anyone who follows public transport development projects with interest glumly knows. Delays are frequent and inevitable. What was planned for 2028 gets pushed back to 2031, and then to 2034... far-future articles like this aren't practical. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 05:57, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too far in future for any reliable predictions.--Staberinde (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

M53 motorway coach crash

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. Per WP:NOPAGE, this is better covered at List of traffic collisions (2000–present) or M53 motorway. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, United Kingdom, and England. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Turkey bus crashes

AfDs for this article:

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability, and high-casualty bus crashes are common. Fails WP:EVENT. Per WP:NOPAGE, this is better covered with two entries at List of traffic collisions (2000–present) or separately at articles for the locations of the crashes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Turkey. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per first discussion. If not then merge with List of traffic collisions (2000–present). Moondragon21 (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – 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 since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage of the event itself with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated. 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 per the above. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:58, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete Everything here is news coverage within days of the accidents. There's no suggestion of anything lasting. Mangoe (talk) 02:58, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yacht transport

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

This article is a redundant content fork/semi-duplicate of yacht, which should cover this entire topic in about a single paragraph. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Transportation. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete lengthy belaboring of the reality that once you set your small-ish boat in a cradle, you can ship it pretty much the way you can ship anything else. Mangoe (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though may need more SIGCOV citations to support it which I tried to look for, see this as it has potential to be standalone as its concept is like the aquatic vehicle analog of Roll-on/roll-off, seems transporting vehicles for land or sea is serious stuff, or merge to the Yacht article as an ATD. Lorraine Crane (talk) 07:18, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Yacht: Fails WP:GNG as there is no independent sources as any information i was able to find was created by companies working within yacht transport and there was little secondary sources that provide SIGCOV required. However, no need for deletion, can easily be fit into yacht as a section. Nagol0929 (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman, Texas bus accident

AfDs for this article:

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability, and high-casualty bus crashes are common. Coverage following the event is only further breaking news. Fails WP:EVENT. Per WP:NOPAGE, this is better covered at List of traffic collisions (2000–present), U.S. Route 75 in Texas, or Sherman, Texas. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, United States of America, and Texas. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Uttarakhand bus accident

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability, and high-casualty bus crashes are common. Fails WP:EVENT. Per WP:NOPAGE, this is better covered at List of traffic collisions (2000–present) or Dhumakot. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, India, and Uttarakhand. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per WP:NEVENT. Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources. Accident which caused 32 deaths is not something that always happen. It was also discussed throughout the nation well as indicated by the sources.Thilsebatti (talk) 03:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – 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 since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage of the event itself with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. The only mention of the crash that I could find post-June 2022 was a brief mention in October 2022 in a list of road accident in Uttarakhand from Al Jazeera. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated. 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 per the above. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - first I'd say how sorry I am to read about this. Second, I would disagree that 32+ dead in a bus accident would ever be not notable. Third, I would prefer to see the (unfortunately numerous) mass casualty events in Uttarakhand merged into a single page to avoid this kind of nom. I can't !vote for a merge as there isn't a page to merge them to as far as I can tell. Anyway, until that page exists, I'd say that the half-dozen mass casualty events are all notable. JMWt (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
JMWt, something being tragic or causing fatalities, as I already said in the nomination statement, is not a factor that's considered in an event's notability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:29, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are entitled to your opinion. Mine is that an event which tragically kills more than 30 people should always be considered notable on en.wiki. JMWt (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the coverage is from October 2022. It needs lasting coverage to meet WP:EVENT. The number of people dead is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
with respect, all the coverage in English might be from that date. You're telling me that there are not likely to be other references about a massive casualty event of this size? Nobody had an obituary, no government or official reports, no recriminations, complaints etc? Highly unlikely. JMWt (talk) 10:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide these sources then. LibStar (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't speak local languages. I'm talking about the likelihood that they exist. I've found a news reference talking about an official accident report, so clearly it has significance beyond news. JMWt (talk) 11:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a letter from the federal Supreme Court talking about an extensive report (pdf) 1 JMWt (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Washuk bus accident

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability, and high-casualty bus crashes are common. Fails WP:EVENT. Per WP:NOPAGE, this is better covered at List of traffic collisions (2000–present) or a brief mention in Washuk. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Pakistan. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (weak) - PM and notable people commented, and event seems recent, so might still prove notable via WP:LASTING, maybe - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep terrible mass casualty accident, clearly notable. What another horrible accident. JMWt (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – 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 since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage of the event itself with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated. 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 per the above. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well unsurprisingly the families do not consider this to be a news story. In July 2024 they made public their call for a boycott of the bus company and the bus company was shut down after an investigation.

If I could search better in Urdu, I think there are very strong indications that there is more analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis to be found in the media and sustained coverage beyond a single day. JMWt (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify The main point of disagreement here seems to be that it is unclear if this is a case of WP:LASTING. Therefore, I think the best idea is to keep it as a draft form rather than going all the way on a delete and see if the accident continues to be notable since it only happened a little over a year ago. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreen Avenue station

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

Disputed redirect without improvement. Currently zero in-depth coverage, and Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:01, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Stations, Transportation, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Myrtle Avenue Elevated#Station listing (or perhaps merge to Central Avenue station (BMT Myrtle Avenue Line)#History). The closed elevated stations are a mixed bag as far as notability goes. Because of its short lifespan and early closure, there doesn't seem to be any significant coverage of this station. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BMT_Myrtle_Avenue_Line#Opening: or the table below where it's mentioned. Insufficient coverage to merit a standalone article. Star Mississippi 00:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this article gets deleted, then every other closed station article like Park Avenue should get deleted as well, and this sets a bad precedent. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 03:17, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WAX is not a valid argument in a deletion discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:27, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:WAX doesn't actually say that this is never a valid argument; it only says that it may not be a very convincing one. Tduk (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per pending expansion. Cards84664 03:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If deleted, it's entirely possible that, down the road, some overly-eager editor will remove the relevant information from whatever article this is merged into, as it's a minor part of the line's history. Being from so long ago, sources are also going to be hard to find, so I don't want to dismiss there being more good sources out there. Never mind that I'm not sure who following such a pessimistic possibly overly-literal interpretation of the deletion policy helps in this case - though fixing policy is another discussion entirely. Tduk (talk) 03:49, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Mights aren't a good reason to keep. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references already present in the article appear to be adequate. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:43, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, so, just so we're clear, an article with 4 sources, 2 of which do not mention the subject, one which is a map, and the final one which has a brief mention of the subject, are enough to show notability? Interesting.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BMT Myrtle Avenue Line#Station listing (note this is where the above-suggested Myrtle Avenue Elevated#Station listing redirects to). Insufficently independently notable station that is entirely reasonable to redirect to the line. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to BMT Myrtle Avenue Line#Station listing: Non-notable station. Not enough SIGCOV. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 05:46, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft space. Cards84664 19:22, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or redirect to BMT Myrtle Avenue Line#Station listing. Unfortunately, I cannot find any sources speaking about this station in depth, unlike for virtually all currently-operational stations where such sources do exist. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:41, 20 July 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 redirect‎ to Top Gear series 14. Thank you for the source analysis table. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:50, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Top Gear: Bolivia Special

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

Fails WP:GNG. Previously redirected, but was reverted. Nothing found to support notability. DonaldD23 talk to me 19:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Transportation, and United Kingdom. DonaldD23 talk to me 19:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bolivia and Chile. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Guardian and Toronto Star articles show notability (show most watched in BBC that day and most memorable articles). There are many more sources discussing this episode as one of the best ones of the show ([2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]). It should be noted the redirect was made without consensus from AfD. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Top Gear series 14 under new subheading. Lacks stand-alone, non-trivial coverage; I've only found it mentioned in lists. There's not enough to justify seperating this from the Series page. // PYRiTEmonark // talk // 20:38, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of Itzcuauhtli11's sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/dec/29/top-gear-bolivia-tv-ratings	No issues with independence	WP:GUARDIAN	Full article is about the episode and its impact	✔ Yes
https://www.thestar.com/autos/top-gear-top-picks-20-years-after-its-relaunch-we-look-at-some-memorable-episodes/article_2a824256-327c-5919-aa80-b7392843d15b.html	No issues with independence	No real consensus, but most of what I've found puts the Toronto Star at generally reliable	Truthfully, I cannot access the article, but given the title I would probably put it in the same camp as the other lists of episodes which were not SIGCOV	? Unknown
https://screenrant.com/top-gear-funniest-episodes/	No issues with independence	Per WP:RSP, Screen Rant is considered reliable for entertainment topics, but not for controversial statements.	Only two paragraphs, I'd put this on the upper end of not SIGCOV, but its just not enough for me	✘ No
https://www.thetravel.com/9-roads-too-dangerous-to-show-on-tv-11-the-top-gear-hosts-actually-tried/	No issues with independence	I'm not seeing any blaring red flags for it being unreliable, but also not seeing anything strong suggesting it is.	Not SIGCOV of the episode, focuses on one specific road in the episode.	✘ No
https://www.motortrend.com/news/best-top-gear-episodes	No issues with independence	Again, I'm not seeing anything inherently reliable or unreliable, but I would be more skeptical of this.	One paragraph, very little depth.	✘ No
https://www.whichcar.com.au/news/favourite-top-gear-specials	No issues with independence	I'd say its reliable, much more obviously an 'actual' magazine versus the others so far.	One sentence and an embedded video for the special.	✘ No
https://www.jalopnik.com/these-are-your-favorite-old-top-gear-segments-1850383064/	No issues with independence	Looks reliable, was able to find their editorial policy which holds up.	Barely two sentences.	✘ No
https://www.carsuk.net/top-gear-in-bolivia/	No issues with independence	Again, no blatant red or green flags, but I'd put this a bit higher on possible reliability based purely on vibes.	While on the surface I could argue it is almost SIGCOV, it actually was written before the episode aired, and so only has the surface level information provided prior to its airing.	✘ No
https://www.cbr.com/top-gear-best-episodes-ranked/	No issues with independence	Fully transparent editorial team and policies.	Only two paragraphs, little depth.	✘ No
https://theculturetrip.com/europe/united-kingdom/articles/the-top-gear-top-10-extreme-driving-locations	No issues with independence	Website is little more than an advertisement/travel guide.	Only a trivial mention of the Bolivia episode.	✘ No
https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/best-top-gear-episodes/	No issues with independence	WP:DIGITALTRENDS	Only one paragraph, little depth.	✘ No
https://stacker.com/stories/tv/50-best-top-gear-episodes	No issues with independence	Appears to be self-published, or something close to it.	One paragraph, little depth.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

First go at a proper source assessment, and based on it I would say merge to Top Gear series 14 per Pyrite. Weirdguyz (talk) 09:33, 16 July 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 Outback Highway

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

Notability is not demonstrated for this road. 5 of the sources are maps from the state government (which I'd consider primary sources) and the other is Google Maps. I couldn't find anything when searching online for significant coverage.

(Note that if you want to look for any sources, a lot of the results will be for Outback Highway which is a different road from WA to Queensland; you'll probably want to add "South Australia" in quotation marks to your search.) – numbermaniac 07:39, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 09:56, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 08:33, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found two non-fiction book sources searching for "The Outback Highway" "B83". This self-published source has about 7 pages worth on birdwatching sites and there's this which I quote below. On Google Scholar there were 2 sources but only mentioning the Outback Highway [12] [13]. Meanwhile, a fiction book mentioning it. I found at least 5 news sources but they were just mentions. Searching for South Australian sources in Newspapers.com produced 3 false positives. Nothing on JSTOR, TWL. starship.paint (talk / cont) 01:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Through repeated searching, the text in the book "The Road to Innamincka" starship.paint (talk / cont)

We hit a minor road heading up into the Flinders Ranges hills towards Lyndhurst. I slept (or at least had my eyes closed) through most of that stretch, but later learned that the unassuming B83 was the gateway to a great deal of Australian travel romance. After Hawker, this road became the Outback Highway - an alluring name if there ever was one. It followed the eastern shore of the eternally dry Lake Torrens a dozen or so kilometres to the west, offering a sealed surface only as far as Lyndhurst. There, you could choose to wend your dusty way north to Marree, where your choices to proceed were either the Oodnadatta Track or

Redirect to Outback Highway, which is the more important and prominent topic in sources connecting three Australian states: Western Australia, Central Australia and Queensland. Meanwhile, "The Outback Highway" is a rural road within the South Australia state that links 6 or 7 towns of a total population of less than 500, and it fails WP:GNG from my search of the sources above. Birdwatching sites in one book and text that is one paragraph long in a second book doesn't cut it. I have already added some information on "The Outback Highway" in List of highways in South Australia#The Outback Highway and a hatnote can be inserted in "Outback Highway" as a link to people searching for "The Outback Highway". starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:45, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

STS Group (Dubai)

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. The article lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources to demonstrate notability. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Arab Emirates. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the organization is the largest school transport provider in the country, has quite a lot of coverage from Khaleej Times & Gulf News. The UAE govt has collaborated with the company [14]. It's most certainly notable here. jolielover♥talk 13:46, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable and well-cited in various media, including Khaleej and similar outlets. More sources could perhaps be added. Once upon a daylight dreary (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Why i am being concerned about the notability of this topic? I found [15], [16]. But need more to support the case. I also found this, unfortunately this is a press release. Raj Shri21 (talk)

Nagaon railway station

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

Other than brief mentions, Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Would have redirected ATD, but could not find a reasonable target. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:24, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, India, and Assam. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nagaon railway station clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria under WP:RAIL. It is an active station on the Northeast Frontier Railway, serving the town of Nagaon in Assam with station code "NGAN". The station is listed in official timetables, with multiple express and passenger trains halting there daily. As a vital piece of regional infrastructure with verifiable coverage, it justifies having its own standalone Wikipedia article. Aryan^{Talk} 07:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you use an LLM to produce this comment? Cremastra (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:RAIL is neither a policy nor a guideline.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- And it's not even an essay - it's a WikiProject, and the page (rightfully) says nothing about notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment Usual practice for stations about which there is no particular detail or notability claim is to redirect it to a listing of stations for the line or railroad. Mangoe (talk) 03:15, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We could use more participation and arguments for specific outcomes here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:55, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Northeast Frontier Railway zone I would redirect to the appropriate division instead but most of those articles are incomplete, and it's not clear which division this station lies in. Mangoe (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Espinar bus crash

AfDs for this article:

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability, and high-casualty bus crashes are common. Fails WP:EVENT. Per WP:NOPAGE, this is better covered at List of traffic collisions (2000–present) or Yauri, Peru. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Peru. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It hasn't even been a year since the last AfD. – Ike Lek (talk) 06:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:2MONTHS, If the XfD discussion was closed as “no consensus”, generally do not renominate the page for at least two months. Since the last discussion was closed as no consensus seven months ago, there is no problem with renominating the page for deletion. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 06:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the keep vote above fails to address notability concerns. I see no lasting impact/coverage to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 06:00, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete this depressingly routine bus crash article. Mangoe (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stations

MIDC - Andheri metro station

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

Continued disputed redirect with zero in-depth coverage, and no improvements. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:06, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:28, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport - T1 metro station

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

Again, continued disputed redirect with zero in-depth coverage, and no improvements. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:07, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:28, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, unlike some station articles this one does have at least some citations to reliable sources. Unfortunately all the ones to newspapers are about the construction and opening of the metro line, and are not about the station. The Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd citation contains good information about the lifts and escalators available and other station facilities - but the Wikipedia article makes little use of this. The one positive feature of the Wikipedia article is the infobox - with its little street map, photograph, concise information, the best case for keeping the article is the infobox.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Just a dude from earth: I have found independent sources that are just about the metro station,^[17][18][19] and also one with a small but interesting mention of the station.^[20] There might be a good case for keeping this article if more can be found.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The concerns regarding a perceived lack of in-depth coverage specific to the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport - T1 metro station have been actively addressed. I have recently added a new section. This new content demonstrates the station's distinct notability, moving beyond general metro line construction news and providing dedicated, verifiable information about its function and importance within the Mumbai public transport network. As a critical gateway to one of India's busiest airports, it is highly probable that over time, the station will naturally garner increased independent media attention regarding its operations, passenger experience, and any future developments or events, further solidifying its long-term notability. Maintaining this article allows for the organic growth of verifiable information as the station continues to serve a vital role.

Just a dude from earth (talk) 10:11, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daulatpur railway station (Khulna)

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

Disputed redirect without improvement. Zero in-depth sourcing and searches did not turn up enough to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 10:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Darshana-Jessore-Khulna line per usual practice for these non-notable stations. Mangoe (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- agree with the redirect to Darshana-Jessore-Khulna line as checking the citations in the article seems mostly describing the Railways in Bangladesh or even the Indian railways system in general and is not specifically about this section, websearches so far lack of SIGCOV for the subject.Lorraine Crane (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dhalarchar railway station

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

Disputed redirect without improvement. Zero in-depth sourcing and searches did not turn up enough to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:52, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
restore redirect to List of railway stations in Bangladesh#Pabna District which is the usual case for a NN station. Mangoe (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Old-AgedKid (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreen Avenue station

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

Disputed redirect without improvement. Currently zero in-depth coverage, and Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:01, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Stations, Transportation, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Myrtle Avenue Elevated#Station listing (or perhaps merge to Central Avenue station (BMT Myrtle Avenue Line)#History). The closed elevated stations are a mixed bag as far as notability goes. Because of its short lifespan and early closure, there doesn't seem to be any significant coverage of this station. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BMT_Myrtle_Avenue_Line#Opening: or the table below where it's mentioned. Insufficient coverage to merit a standalone article. Star Mississippi 00:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this article gets deleted, then every other closed station article like Park Avenue should get deleted as well, and this sets a bad precedent. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 03:17, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WAX is not a valid argument in a deletion discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:27, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:WAX doesn't actually say that this is never a valid argument; it only says that it may not be a very convincing one. Tduk (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per pending expansion. Cards84664 03:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If deleted, it's entirely possible that, down the road, some overly-eager editor will remove the relevant information from whatever article this is merged into, as it's a minor part of the line's history. Being from so long ago, sources are also going to be hard to find, so I don't want to dismiss there being more good sources out there. Never mind that I'm not sure who following such a pessimistic possibly overly-literal interpretation of the deletion policy helps in this case - though fixing policy is another discussion entirely. Tduk (talk) 03:49, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Mights aren't a good reason to keep. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references already present in the article appear to be adequate. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:43, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, so, just so we're clear, an article with 4 sources, 2 of which do not mention the subject, one which is a map, and the final one which has a brief mention of the subject, are enough to show notability? Interesting.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BMT Myrtle Avenue Line#Station listing (note this is where the above-suggested Myrtle Avenue Elevated#Station listing redirects to). Insufficently independently notable station that is entirely reasonable to redirect to the line. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to BMT Myrtle Avenue Line#Station listing: Non-notable station. Not enough SIGCOV. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 05:46, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft space. Cards84664 19:22, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or redirect to BMT Myrtle Avenue Line#Station listing. Unfortunately, I cannot find any sources speaking about this station in depth, unlike for virtually all currently-operational stations where such sources do exist. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nagaon railway station

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

Other than brief mentions, Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Would have redirected ATD, but could not find a reasonable target. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:24, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, India, and Assam. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nagaon railway station clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria under WP:RAIL. It is an active station on the Northeast Frontier Railway, serving the town of Nagaon in Assam with station code "NGAN". The station is listed in official timetables, with multiple express and passenger trains halting there daily. As a vital piece of regional infrastructure with verifiable coverage, it justifies having its own standalone Wikipedia article. Aryan^{Talk} 07:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you use an LLM to produce this comment? Cremastra (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:RAIL is neither a policy nor a guideline.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- And it's not even an essay - it's a WikiProject, and the page (rightfully) says nothing about notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment Usual practice for stations about which there is no particular detail or notability claim is to redirect it to a listing of stations for the line or railroad. Mangoe (talk) 03:15, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We could use more participation and arguments for specific outcomes here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:55, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Northeast Frontier Railway zone I would redirect to the appropriate division instead but most of those articles are incomplete, and it's not clear which division this station lies in. Mangoe (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation Proposed deletions

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

Transportation-related Images and media for Deletion

None at present

Transportation-related Miscellany for deletion

None at present

Transportation-related Templates for Deletion

None at present

Transportation-related Categories for Discussion

None at present

Transportation-related Deletion Review

None at present

Transportation-related Redirects for Discussion

None at present