Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Transportation|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Transportation. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


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

1993 Camp Ripley mid-air collision

1993 Camp Ripley mid-air collision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This accident whilst potentially notable has very little for an article of its own. A quick Google search lists a few potentially usable sources, however it still isn't much. This one for example looks to be passable (I am unfamiliar with the site in general however). I think the most appropriate course of action for this article would be a redirect to a relevant section of the main Camp Ripley article. 11WB (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article I linked above (and the one I linked by mistake before that, which I switched) contain nothing more than passing mentions. I think this strengthens the arguments for a redirect. 11WB (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia lorry deaths

Sofia lorry deaths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a subject of sustained secondary coverage as required by WP:N. Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Al Ain bus accident

2013 Al Ain bus accident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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 the history section of Al Ain if this is truly a historical event. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and United Arab Emirates. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't find any coverage past February 2013, even when searching in Arabic (using combinations of ٱلْعَيْن حادث حافلة في فبراير 2013). High fatality bus accidents seem to be unfortunately common in the UAE, and I can't see anything that would set this one apart or give it a greater WP:IMPACT than the others. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 03:01, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no WP:SUSTAINED coverage, seems like routine news coverage at the time. jolielover♥talk 06:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - another saddening road traffic accident :( There was more coverage than has been mentioned as there was at least one court case 1 and 2 and further coverage one year later 3 and two years later 4. There's likely more in non-English sources. Mass casualty events of this kind are highly unlikely to be non-notable. JMWt (talk) 07:09, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Full disclaimer: The National sources are locked out to me. That being said, well, it's The National. The state-owned newspaper of Abu Dhabi, described in our own article as a "mouthpiece" of the government and known for heavy censorship of their own content. They've even fired journalists who write about the UAE's human right abuses against migrant workers[5] (said journalist was soon after deported from the country). Given that this crash had the potential to impact international relations, and the victims were workers from SEA, I'm disputing this source's reliability in this topic area. Court case story is better, but there's lots of court cases every year that result in payouts being given to the families of deceased workers. I'd like to see something more than a news story from the time of the case stating that it happened.
    And speaking of saddening road accidents in UAE, here's [6] another mass casulty bus crash in the same neighborhood from just a few years ago. 24 people had died as of the printing of that story. Here's more from the UAE in general from just the past few years [7][8][9][10]. These are unfortunately much too common. Also looked for sources in Bengali; am unable to find any, though I also kept finding more stories about different accidents in the same neighborhood that killed Bangladeshi workers [11]. It really really sucks that these are so common but they are. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 08:04, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok well that's all likely true but that doesn't mean that they are exaggerating about a traffic accident. Whichever way we look at it, a lot of people died and it would be a major story almost anywhere in the world.
    I'd be more comfortable if we could redirect to a List of road traffic accidents in Abu Dhabi rather than a nonsense global list, but given that it doesn't exist then for me it is still a !keep. JMWt (talk) 08:14, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Yes, it was a major story at the time, and then other major stories happened and it faded into the past. Does anyone understand what "sustained coverage" means? Mangoe (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

California State Route 35 (1934–1964)

California State Route 35 (1934–1964) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page for many years. Not finding the RS to show it meets the notability standards for inclusion. JMWt (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nyamagabe bus shooting

Nyamagabe bus shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All the sources are from June 2022. No lasting coverage or effect to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable since it was used as justification for the arrest of Paul Rusesabagina Darer101 (talk) 04:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That does not make this topic notable. Koshuri (あ!) 05:31, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Zeusch Aviation Beechcraft King Air crash

2025 Zeusch Aviation Beechcraft King Air crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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: 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]
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 Osarius 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopening and relisting in my individual capacity as an uninvolved admin, per WP:REOPEN.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:30, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm going to be honest, I'd say either keep this article or delete it, but can neither confirm nor deny what the outcome will be 2A0A:EF40:5BD:C501:9091:BBF9:B5BC:CDA1 (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asahidake Ropeway

Asahidake Ropeway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD failed, so here goes nothing. I see no way of de-stubbing this article, because the subject isn't really notable. Sure, they may still be a part of several databooks that cover all ropeways in Japan, but I wouldn't take that as enough to justify the article's existence. There are a ton of passing mentions if I search "旭岳ロープウェイ", as the mountain seems pretty popular as a sightseeing spot. Searched "Asahidake Ropeway", I only got more travel booking service advertisements. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 15:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings on Public Transport) (England) Regulations 2020

Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings on Public Transport) (England) Regulations 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not notable. Landpin (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A completely unsupportable RFD that seems to have been made with no consideration of WP:BEFORE. This is one of a comprehensive series of articles covering the legal restrictions imposed on the public during the pandemic in England. Like all such regulations, the restrictions attracted considerable critical commentary at the time, and were widely covered by the press. The regulations were the basis of several thousand prosecutions, and were contentious not least because of a perceived risk of disabled people being unfairly targeted.
Simply by typing the title into Google, it's a trivial matter to pull out multiple independent sources that discuss the regulations or their effects in detail. I found the following literally in 5 minutes, and there are many more:
  1. Face coverings on public transport: Parliamentary approval of Covid-19 regulations. House of Lords Library. [12]
  2. Update on the Coronavirus Health Protection Regulations: Implications for Children. Youth Justice Legal centre [13]
  3. Face coverings to become mandatory on public transport. Government announcement with background and minister's quotes. [14]
  4. Local Authorities Fall Foul of New Face Mask Exemption Transport Laws. Chopsey Bristol News. [15]
  5. Coronavirus: Widen rules on where face coverings must be used, say UK doctors. BBC. [16]
  6. BTP to step up enforcement of mask wearing on public transport. Police Professional. [17]
  7. FOI request to Transport for London, with response. [18]
  8. Covid-19: Thousands prosecuted over London transport mask rules. BBC. [19]
  9. Disabled passengers could be unfairly accused over face covering rules. Scope. [20] MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: COVID-19 and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The legalisation affected millions of people in England whilst it was in force, so it's hardly not notable. This page has also being very well written and a lot of people who are wanting to learn about the impact of COVID in the UK will also appreciate being able to understand the emergency legislation that was enforced at the time - I actually didn't know there was a formal regulation around wearing a face coverings on public transport, and I'm not intrigued to read this article in case for some reason it gets deleted, though I don't forsee it, GeekBurst (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - while currently there are only primary sources, for non-BLP articles, one must use the BEFORE process before nominating such an article for deletion. The article needs work, but I'm literally the only active member of WikiProject Law who is actively assessing legal articles right now. Bearian (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep if it was new I would say draft but at this point it is old and notable
    Czarking0 (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is not just an article transcribing some country's law. It contains regulations, history, background and other info, and therefore qualifies as encyclopedic content. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable. Evidence already presented above. S5A-0043🚎(Talk) 02:25, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Westlock Interlocking

Westlock Interlocking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems like there might be sources to write a decent page, but this isn't it. It reads like a WP:PROMO for a commercial product, likely COI issues and might even have been cut&pasted from somewhere else JMWt (talk) 18:55, 26 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antipas highway collision

Antipas highway collision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of sustained coverage and lasting effect. Event fails both WP:LASTING and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: no deep analysis or discussion on the accident occurred after it happened, and no evidence of a lasting impact (like reforms in PH transportation, reforms in the municipal government etc.) that would warrant the event inclusion as an article. This is best imported to WikiNews. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:13, 26 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 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 Sheppey Crossing#Incidents. Liz Read! Talk! 00:36, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sheppey Crossing crash

Sheppey Crossing crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All the coverage is from September 2013. No lasting impact or coverage to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sheppey Crossing#Incidents. There actually is continued coverage (See this 2015 journal article [22] and this brief mention [23], bunch of news articles up through 2025 [24][25][26][27]), but that's only going to let me add a paragraph or two to the crash article. Also, given the crash article is mostly already largely duplicative of the incidents section in the main bridge article, and with a nod to WP:NOPAGE, I think coverage of the crash works better in the main article on the bridge. That being said, if the bridge article gets too busy, then we can always spin the crash article back out at a later date, as I do think it squeaks past NEVENT. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 01:09, 26 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.

Telegraph Pass (Arizona)

Telegraph Pass (Arizona) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite the name of this article, the topic is a short part of an expressway that flips sides. I can't find any sources on this topic that would qualify for WP:GNG. Second, there is a geographical feature with this name. But while there appear to be several scattered mentions of this pass in government documents and in hiking guides detailing trails in the area, I can find no sources that would pass GNG (and WP:SIGCOV in particular). Any useful info here can/should be merged into Interstate 8 in Arizona (edited to Interstate 8 § Yuma to Casa Grande per Liz's comment below). Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This article has the potential to become notable with enough coverage. However, it should be merged into Interstate 8 in Arizona for the time being. WiinterU 05:10, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This intro article was one on a series of passes with the understanding more details of the area would be added. Sadly, Wikipedia lost many of the editors that were doing such. While the pass itself is of minor interest, the surrounding area is notable enough. Thus with a little additional writing, instead of deleting, to include information around the pass - by the same name - should resolve the WP:GNG issue. Below are a few secondary examples of the area from Google. See the talk page of the article for more suggestions. Jrcrin001 (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jrcrin001: A few points. First, this article is about the highway segment. Things nearby may be interesting, but they do not speak to the notability of this topic. Second, none of the sources you provided below (which I've placed into {{cot}} for readability) meet the requirements set out at the reliable sources and general notability guidelines. Things like personal hiking reviews, Tripadvisor, Yelp, Waze driving directions, and a local screen printing store's advertisement(?) are not reliable and do not prove notability under Wikipedia's definition. Last, I'd encourage you to collate your own comments instead of using a LLM (see WP:AITALK). Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:30, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Edit to add: it's possible that there are enough sources out there for an article on Hiking in Arizona. E.g. this speaks specifically to Yuma County, there are general books on hiking in Arizona, we already have Hiking in Connecticut, and there's several articles on individual trails in Arizona. But I'm still not seeing anything that warrants an article on this highway segment. Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:36, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So "Telegraph Pass (Arizona)" deletion discussion must only only discuss the notability of a highway pass? The popular "Telegraph Pass" hiking trail must then be ignored? The geographical issues "Telegraph Pass" must also be ignored?
By changing the focus to the name of "Telegraph Pass (Arizona)" and including the two subjects in addition to the highway pass, may make the article more interesting and notable enough? If not, then delete ALL the highway pass type articles. OR Make a suggestion to the transportation crowd to create one article for all passes along a highway route. Something like "Interstate 8 - Passes". Jrcrin001 (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsed list of sources from Jrcrin001

2. Onx Offroad onxmaps.com/offroad/trails… Telegraph Pass, Arizona - GPS Trail Map, Conditions & Difficulty This fun out-and-back trail follows along the popular Telegraph Pass Hiking Trail. It begins just off the frontage road where two-wheel drive vehicles typically stage from.

3. Sunny Days With Kelly lifeinthedesert.net/blog/2022/12/2… Hiking Telegraph Pass - Sunny Days With Kelly Telegraph Pass is a very popular hike in Yuma, Arizona. This is a great hike for locals and visitors of all ages. Each time I make this hike, I am always amazed by young kids and those older than me racing up the mountain. It’s quite motivating. Many locals use this trail as an outdoor training fac

4. Tripadvisor tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Rev… Telegraph Pass (2025) - All You Need to Know BEFORE You Go ... United StatesArizona (AZ)YumaThings to Do in YumaTelegraph Pass #8 of 69 things to do in YumaHiking TrailsWrite a review ElijahKingman, AZ19 contributionsHiking Fun! rickysmomYuma, AZ61 contributionsHard for me but worth it! steelheadfisherSpokane, WA43 contributionsGreat hike! Cyndi SDYuma, AZ113 contributionsBirthday Hike It was my birthday and I wanted to challenge my fitness level, my heart was pumping near the steep top! I love it! Take water, a hat, sunglasses, chap stick, Sunscreen and...

5. mapquest mapquest.com/us/arizona/tel… Telegraph Pass, N Frontage Rd, Yuma, AZ 85367, US - MapQuest Telegraph Pass is a local outdoor recreational area in Yuma, AZ, offering hiking trails and scenic views for visitors to enjoy.

6. Yelp yelp.com/biz/telegraph-… TELEGRAPH PASS - Updated July 2025 - 39 Photos & 24 Reviews TELEGRAPH PASS, E North Frontage Rd, Yuma, AZ 85367, 38 Photos, Mon - Open 24 hours, Tue - Open 24 hours, Wed - Open 24 hours, Thu - Open 24 hours, Fri - Open 24 hours, Sat - Open 24 hours, Sun - Open 24 hours

7. HikeArizona.COM hikearizona.com/decoder.php?ZT… Telegraph Pass Trail - South Mountain, AZ | HikeArizona 1.15 mi OW + 536 ft accumulated elev gain

8. Outdoor Project outdoorproject.com/united-states/… Telegraph Pass Hike - Outdoor Project The Telegraph Pass Trail is an easily accessible trail that serves as the main connection between southern Phoenix and the rest of South Mountain Park and Preserve. Comparatively shorter and steeper than the other trails within South Mountain, the trail is the more popular option served by the adequately-sized paved parking area off of Desert Foothills Parkway, which also provides access to the Desert Classic Trail. Roughly the first third of the Telegraph Pass trail is paved. The paved section ends around the area of some petroglyphs marked with an interpretive sign off to the right.

Modern Hiker modernhiker.com/hike/telegraph… Telegraph Pass to Kiwanis Trail - Modern Hiker This moderate-beginner friendly trail outside Phoenix takes you to spectacular views and ancient Hohokum petroglyphs, with great wildflowers in the spring.

Friendly Acres RV Park friendlyacresrv.com/telegraph-pass… Telegraph Pass Trail near Yuma - Friendly Acres RV Resort While you’re staying at Friendly Acres RV Resort in Yuma be sure to experience Telegraph Pass. You’ll find a variety of options for activities.

zuzuforkids zuzuforkids.com/places/us/az/y… Telegraph Pass, Hiking Trail in Yuma - ZuzuForKids - ZuZu For Kids Telegraph Pass offers a challenging hike for those seeking a workout and a test of endurance. The trail features steep inclines, rocky terrain, and switchbacks ...

mindtrip mindtrip.ai/attraction/sou… Telegraph Pass Trail in Arizona | Ask Anything - Mindtrip Telegraph Pass Trail is a challenging hiking route in Fortuna Foothills, Arizona, known for its steep ascent and rewarding panoramic views.

Hiking Project hikingproject.com/trail/7023094/… Telegraph Pass Trail - Arizona - Hiking Project A short, moderate trail to Telegraph Pass and the National Trail. Near Laveen, Arizona.

10adventures 10adventures.com/hikes/phoenix/… Telegraph Pass to Pyramid Trail Hiking Route Guide - 10Adventures The Telegraph Pass to Pyramid Trail hike is a point-to-point adventure in Phoenix's South Mountain Preserve. Use this handy 10Adventures route guide to ...

waze waze.com/live-map/direc… Driving directions to Telegraph Pass Trailhead, Interstate 8 ... - Waze Realtime driving directions to Telegraph Pass Trailhead, Interstate 8 Frontage Rd, Yuma, based on live traffic updates and road conditions – from Waze ...

youtube youtube.com/watch?v=mxRzby… Telegraph pass trail in south mountain - YouTube shop Vega23 merch at https://vegaprintaz.com/store if you need labor tees check us out on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/labor.tees/ thank you for your support

hiiker hiiker.app/trails/arizona… Telegraph Pass Trail | Maricopa County | Arizona - Hiiker

1996-2024 HikeArizona.COM hikearizona.com/x.php?I=4&ZTN=… Telegraph Pass - Yuma • Hike • Arizona • All Triplogs • HikeArizona ... Search, find, map and plan hikes for AZ & beyond!

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Just as an aside Interstate 8 in Arizona can't be a Redirect target article because it's a Redirect not an article. Please check links before proposing an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:42, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Interstate 8 (the target of the redirect above). Concur that it lacks sigcov, thats actually clearer after the AI assisted search. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:37, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

APCOA Parking

AfDs for this article:
APCOA Parking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:45, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]



Stations

MIDC - Andheri metro station

MIDC - Andheri metro station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport - T1 metro station

Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport - T1 metro station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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,[28][29][30] and also one with a small but interesting mention of the station.[31] 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dhalarchar railway station

Dhalarchar railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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]

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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:22, 28 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.

None at present

None at present

None at present

None at present

None at present

  • None at present
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Transportation&oldid=1303765776"