Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation

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

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

Varamar

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

This article possibly WP:COI Might have been created by someone affiliated with the group which violates WP:NPOV policy. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 04:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Management, Products, Transportation, China, Middle East, Germany, Ukraine, and Canada. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 04:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It does not seem like this company meets WP:NCORP. Aneirinn (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. state welcome signs

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

A dictionary definition of a welcome sign, followed by a gallery. Fails to establish notability. See also: WP:NOTGALLERY. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Many of these photos are also copyvios. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep per WP:NLIST. There are sources for this group of things: "50 state road trip: State welcome signs" and "State welcome signs from around the USA", both USA Today; "Which U.S. State Welcome Sign Is The Best?", BuzzFeed; "50 Welcome Signs for the 50 United States of America", Condé Nast Traveler; "The Welcome Sign from Every State in America", Reader's Digest. Who would've guessed it? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a textbook case of WP:NOTGALLERY. I don't buy the copyvio argument above (except maybe with one or two exceptions), but that's really beside the point. At best, this belongs on Commons. There's no way to verify that these are current, or that a state doesn't use multiple variants, etc. -- just a bunch of (often low quality) snapshots of these things. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - we actually have a bot that periodically goes through all articles and deletes state-owned images. An example is here, which removed an image I'd put on. The exception is if the images were taken individually and uploaded individually. The bot takes time and makes errors. Just an FYI. Bearian (talk) 08:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Saudi Arabia 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. Fails WP:EVENT. All keep voters in the previous discussion erroneously cited news coverage as meeting GNG or made baseless arguments about death count. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Saudi Arabia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2013 San Martin Jilotepeque bus disaster

(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. Unable to find any secondary coverage besides a couple passing mentions in Spanish-language articles about other crashes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Guatemala. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There was international contemporary press coverage at BBC [1], Reuters [2], Sky News [3], RTVE [4], DW [5]. There's been sustained coverage in Guatemalan press: 2016 [6], 2025 [7][8][9]. MarioGom (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources don't confer notability. The sustained coverage in each of those articles is, respectively: two sentences in an article about another crash, six sentences in an article listing crashes, two sentences in an article listing crashes, and three sentences in an article about another crash. If they were all like that second one, then I'd maybe be willing to call it borderline. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Argentina road 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. Just a random news story that fails WP:EVENT. Unable to find any secondary coverage besides a passing mention in an article about a different crash. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Argentina. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Draftify: Based on searches, while the event had a lot of international coverage meeting the standard of WP:DIVERSE, there was no enduring coverage meeting the standard of WP:PERSISTENCE, nor in-depth coverage of the incident for WP:INDEPTH. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 09:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC) Seems to meet some notability, but more work needs to be done on the article. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's been extensive media coverage of the case through the years in Argentinian press: 2021 [10][11], 2023 [12][13], 2024 [14][15]. This year, one year after the case was closed, there's still coverage of conmemorations [16]. It was also one of two case studies analyzed in a 2017 paper [17]. MarioGom (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Between the case study and the commemorations (still "contemporary" coverage but more distanced from the sequence of events), I might be willing to call this one barely notable. PacificDepths, any thoughts on this as the other delete !vote? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I won't oppose keeping but I lean towards Draft. I see MarioGom improved the article. However, the "why" of how this is notable (in sources above) still is unrecorded. I would also expect to see a corresponding article in Spanish Wikipedia. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's recorded in this AFD, which is all that is required for AFD. The article is well sourced, and It does not meet any draftification criteria. MarioGom (talk) 08:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meherullanagar railway station

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

A minor railway station with no major coverage. The only existing mentions are either primary or surface coverage on map/travel sites. Fails WP:GNG. Garsh (talk) 13:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom Somajyoti ✉ 19:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NTRAINSTATION "Train stations have no inherent notability". — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chao Khamrop Road

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

Does not meet WP:NROAD or WP:GNG. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 04:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Thailand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per JackFromWisconsin, both of their points are points where this article fail. Madeline1805 (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, perhaps to Pom Prap, the subdistrict the street is located in. There is in-depth coverage such as the cited Art & Culture article[18] and this short TV documentary[19], but there's only so much that could be said about this minor street, it'd be better off as a mention in a broader article about the wider neighbourhood. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Bukit Gantang 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. The only lasting coverage I'm able to find is passing mentions in the context of other bus crashes in Malaysia because these are relatively common. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Malaysia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erasmus 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. Unable to find any secondary coverage, only initial news reports and then the follow up news report when the driver died. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Spain. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's been sustained coverage in reliable sources in late 2016 [20], 2017 [21], 2018 [22], 2019 [23], 2021 [24], 2023 [25][26][27][28]. MarioGom (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2016 is breaking news about closing the case, 2017 and 2018 are breaking news about reopening the case, 2019 is breaking news about reclosing the case, 2021 is breaking news about a memorial (but also has significant coverage of the crash itself), the 2023 sources are about the driver's death and the subsequent end of the case, and 2021 (which you listed as 2023) is breaking news about a memorial. The 2021 source is promising, but I'd hope for at least one source that actually demonstrated that it's notable in its own right as opposed to contemporary coverage over a long period of time. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The one in 2021 provides non-breaking news in-depth coverage, as you already noticed, and that is sustained coverage:
Costantini, Luca (19 March 2021). "El 'caso Freginals', cinco años de parálisis judicial y con los familiares indignados". Vozpópuli (in Spanish).
The forensic analysis of the case has been published in the Spanish legal medicine journal, which is effectively a primary source, but also an indication of it not being a routine event:
Cabús, Rosa Maria (2023). "Intervención forense en el accidente de autobús con 13 víctimas mortales en Freginals, Tarragona, España". Revista Española de Medicina Legal (in Spanish). 49 (2): 71–78. doi:10.1016/j.reml.2023.03.001.
MarioGom (talk) 10:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple WP:RS found.Sigma World (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Peru 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. Fails WP:EVENT. When attempting to find lasting coverage, I'm only able to find info about other bus crashes in Peru because fatal bus crashes are relatively common. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Peru. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Extensive retrospective analysis of the accident, the investigation and the court case: Herrera, Jocelyn; Loayza, Miguel (29 June 2016). "La muerte siempre está en camino". Somos Periodismo (in Spanish). --MarioGom (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's decent coverage, but it's just one source, and not a reliable one; my understanding is that student publications are considered generally unreliable for anything outside of the school itself. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin Mills Railway 7

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

This isn't a notable locomotive. It's only been sourced to one link and I can't find anything else about it. One locomotive among many at the Steamtown park. Oaktree b (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Steamtown National Historic Site#Locomotives. Not individually notable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm ok with the redirect if it should be decided to go that way. Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Světec train crash

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

No indication of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. This article is about an event which appears not to have received any coverage beyond initial reporting on the day of, or after, the event four years ago. Although the content might be suitable for merging to the railway station page, there is no article there. C 679 07:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Czech Republic. C 679 07:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The investigation is still under way.

https://di.gov.cz/mimoradne-udalosti/setrene-mimoradne-udalosti-a-zaverecne-zpravy/svetec-

https://archiv.hn.cz/c1-67310950-tri-roky-a-porad-nic-tragicka-nehoda-ukazala-systemove-problemy-zeleznice-vysetrovani-ale-vazne GoogolManiac (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are those two sources enough of a prove of continued coverage? There is not much else since there is no new information to cover. When the Rail Safety Inspection (Drážní inspekce) finishes their investigation and releases the report to public, there will be more sources talking about it. GoogolManiac (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:News article, no retrospective coverage. Notable events are ones that continue to get coverage in reliable sources even when there is no new information. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is retrospective coverage: https://archiv.hn.cz/c1-67310950-tri-roky-a-porad-nic-tragicka-nehoda-ukazala-systemove-problemy-zeleznice-vysetrovani-ale-vazne This one is three years later (e.g. one year old), talking about how the accident showed system problems of the Czech railway network and how the investigation is still under way. The other source is an interim investigation report from the Rail Safety Inspection Office of the Czech Republic which came out one month ago. GoogolManiac (talk) 11:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my delete vote because the HN source indicates some level of retrospective coverage. Are there any more sources like that (besides routine things like government reports)? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is retrospective coverage.

https://di.gov.cz/mimoradne-udalosti/setrene-mimoradne-udalosti-a-zaverecne-zpravy/svetec-

https://archiv.hn.cz/c1-67310950-tri-roky-a-porad-nic-tragicka-nehoda-ukazala-systemove-problemy-zeleznice-vysetrovani-ale-vazne GoogolManiac (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vyry bus–train collision

(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. The only lasting coverage I can find is where it's described in one paragraph in an article about train collisions (in Ukrainian). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Ukraine. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find it hard to accept that an accident killing 13 people is not notable. It certainly would be without demur in Western Europe or North America, so I think WP:SYSTEMIC applies here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication of passing WP:NEVENT. Systemic bias is an essay and it is not an excuse to ignore our notability guidelines. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not all coverage may be in English. I would suggest searching for articles in Ukrainian. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and I linked a Ukrainian source in my nomination statement as the closest I could find to significant coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Jalaun district 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. I'm unable to find significant lasting coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Uttar Pradesh. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find it hard to accept that an accident killing 22+ people is not notable. It certainly would be without demur in Western Europe or North America, so I think WP:SYSTEMIC applies here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication of passing WP:NEVENT. Systemic bias is an essay and it is not an excuse to ignore our notability guidelines. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Asafo-Akyem 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. Fails WP:EVENT. I'm unable to find significant lasting coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Ghana. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing has changed since the last AfD. I find it hard to accept that an accident killing 19 people is not notable. It certainly would be without demur in Western Europe or North America, so I think WP:SYSTEMIC applies here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication of passing WP:NEVENT. Systemic bias is an essay and it is not an excuse to ignore our notability guidelines. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Nichols

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

Sources for person covered by the article appear to be minor awards and not especially significant, and may not rise to the level required by WP:ANYBIO Noleander (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Singapore MRT and LRT lines

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

Inadequate references given the amount of information present; Most, if not all, of the information present can be found on the main articles for the MRT, the LRT, and the individual lines. George13lol2 (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. George13lol2 (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The main articles are too big. This is a good content fork. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any sources that discuss these lines as a group, beyond an LTA map (ref 3), so WP:NLIST is not met. I am also very concerned by the huge amount of content – most of the sources are news articles, which cannot possibly verify all of these details (though I haven't checked all of them. S5A-0043, you contested the PROD, do you have an opinion here? Toadspike [Talk] 14:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I removed the PROD is because I felt it is possible to challenge the PROD and thus make it controversial. The first two sentences in the original PROD can be countered with WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP, and there may be an argument that redirecting/merging to other articles (such as redirecting to Transport in Singapore) is a viable WP:ATD (though I hadn’t thought over how to best execute this exactly). I don’t really have a strong personal opinion on this matter, but the reasons I could think of not deleting makes me think that an AFD is a better venue to decide the article’s fate rather than a direct PROD. S5A-0043🚎^{(Leave a message here)} 15:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Jajarkot 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. Fails WP:EVENT. The only retrospective coverage I can find is one sentence where it describes the response as only nominal. Everything else that comes up for me covers a different bus crash in Jajarkot from 2021. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Nepal. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find it hard to accept that an accident killing 47 people is not notable. It certainly would be without demur in Western Europe or North America, so I think WP:SYSTEMIC applies here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication of passing WP:NEVENT. Systemic bias is an essay and it is not an excuse to ignore our notability guidelines. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Villa Canales bus disaster

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. Fails WP:EVENT. I'm unable to find coverage in English or Spanish beyond news reporting. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Guatemala. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete: The above stated reason conforms with wiki standards and I find myself agreeing with their reasoning. Bgrus22 (talk) 06:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find it hard to accept that an accident killing 54 people is not notable. It certainly would be without demur in Western Europe or North America, so I think WP:SYSTEMIC applies here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication of passing WP:NEVENT. Systemic bias is an essay and it is not an excuse to ignore our notability guidelines. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Just noting that the previous AFD closed as Keep (and same nominator).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the deadliest traffic accidents in Guatemala [29]. Still recognized as such through sustained coverage: 2009 [30], 2019 [31], 2025 [32][33]. If someone is up for expanding on the topic, I would recommend merging to a new article for Vuelta el Chilero, since this is a deadly spot that is very widely covered in Guatemalan press. MarioGom (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think one article to cover the incidents in context would be a great WP:ATD if the location itself is the subject of sources. Bgrus22 & PARAKANYAA, thoughts on that instead of deletion? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:32, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea to me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Petersen (businessman)

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

There doesn't seem to be any independent notability here, it seems like deleting or redirecting to Flexport would make sense. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Transportation, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete or Draftify~~ Keep: There exist some reliable sources WP:RS: [34][35] [36] and to a lesser degree [37] for some biographical information. The current article is bad and may be worth blowing up altogether (WP:TNT). A future article has potential. I'm also okay with Draftify as a result. I made changes and I think the current (stub) article is worth keeping. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 07:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC) – updated 01:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. The entire article is riddled with unedited ChatGPT citations, everything needs to be double-checked for relevance and accuracy and cleaned up. It's bad, but not quite WP:TNT bad. Dandykong1 (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify seems like there are RSes to support inclusion but the whole thing has to be redone. There is enough notability to justify inclusion, but it would need to be spearheaded by someone who is willing to actually write it properly. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I made a major rewrite of the article. Please review: BuySomeApples, Dandykong1, Gjb0zWxOb — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 06:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The article does look much better. I wasn't sure if Ryan Petersen is notable outside of Flexport since all the sources seem to be about the company, but if consensus is leaning towards a standalone page for him I'll withdraw this nom. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely think this constitutes an improvement and the sources seem solid. I am willing to withdraw and/or amend my vote here unless there is someone who thinks I am missing something here. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Flexport. jp×g 🗯️ 04:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I think this discussion is split between Draftification and Merge/Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Flexport: Source and target are short enough and while notable, have significant overlap. Komodo (talk) 06:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is a bad idea in my opinion. There shouldn't be personal biographies in company articles. The subject has enough independent coverage for its own article.--Afus199620 (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raina railway station

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 10:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Sidhi 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. Fails WP:EVENT. Looking for coverage beyond initial reports only turned up unrelated accidents. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Madhya Pradesh. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom. Just routine news coverage - WP:NOTNEWS Asteramellus (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ROTM news story, fails WP:NEVENT. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 22:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I find myself agreeing with the above considering the weak coverage. Try finding new articles if you want to reinforce your position, potentially in other languages. Bgrus22 (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find it hard to accept that an accident killing 51+ people is not notable. It certainly would be without demur in Western Europe or North America, so I think WP:SYSTEMIC applies here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more input regarding SYSTEMIC.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding SYSTEMIC, see for instance Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013. Sadly, attacks claiming lives are very common in this region, which is one of the reasons that most of them don't have their own articles. Geschichte (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SYSTEMIC isn't even a notability consideration and is subject to WP:DISCARD. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Air Highnesses

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:NORG – From what I've been able to find, none of the sources passed WP:SIRS since none of them were secondary and did not contain any significant independent coverage of the airline itself and only contained more or less passing/trivial mentions of the airline. Examples: [38] [39] [40] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Transportation, Africa, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Europe, and Armenia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of defunct airlines of Armenia, where I've just added an entry for the airline as it was not previously there. I'll note the article makes me raise an eyebrow as it says, and has a table stating, that the airline operated one Il-76 - but the article also has a photograph of an An-12 in the airline's markings. Hmmmm. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a search conducted in Armenian revealed several sources demonstrating WP:N. The article can be expanded/improved. Archives908 (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you link those sources? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per above request, see [41], [42], [43]. A simple search yielded 22,500 results on Google. Just a matter of sifting through them to see if any more RS can be used. Will maintain my vote as keep and improve. Archives908 (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flightline Flight 101

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

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, which is made all the more evident as the Civil Aviation Accident and Incident Investigation Commission did not issue a single recommendation as a result of this accident (Recomendaciones sobre seguridad – page 23). 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) 08:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Spain. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:News article. Not a WP:CASESTUDY or otherwise subject to any secondary coverage that indicates long-term significance. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fairchild Swearingen Metroliner § Accidents and incidents: This article lacks reliable WP:SECONDARY sources, and its WP:LASTING effects are also bare bones. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of secondary sources online. Per WP:NEXISTS, it does not matter if they are not used in the article. MarioGom (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There was extensive contemporary coverage in reliable sources back in the day (2001), virtually on every Spanish newspaper. There was a newspaper piece on it published in 2013, so there was sustained coverage [44]. MarioGom (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’d lean towards keeping but are there more post-2001 sources? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not many. There's follow up news about the investigation in 2004 [45], and passing mentions in articles about similar incident in 2014 [46][47], but these last 2 are not that relevant. MarioGom (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lodaya (train)

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

This article has been created multiple times before (Draft:Lodaya Train, Draft:Lodaya train, Draft:Lodaya (train)) with slightly different names. I am unable to find sources to show that this meets GNG. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Indonesia. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page is completely unsourced, and notability is clearly lacking. Author is a bit disruptive since they keep recreating the article for no reason, and they also remove maintenance templates without explanation. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the expansion since nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FedEx Express Flight 87

AfDs for this article:

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

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. 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) 09:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Philippines. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete as recreation of deleted material; in any case this is a relatively minor accident of no interest outside of standard accident investigation, except of course for those whose shipments were damaged or lost. Mangoe (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mangoe it looks like CSD doesn't apply in this case. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The aircraft was written off, and the crash was part of the record - for instance being mentioned again in articles on other crashes such as [48] [49] (those don't meet GNG for this crash, but the article meets GNG and the crash is well documented.) The previous AfD wasn't that well attended so speedy delete doesn't make sense here. SportingFlyer T·C 14:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The aircraft accident was caused by blockage of pitot tubes which has resulted in fatal plane accidents like Birgenair Flight 301 and Aeroperu Flight 603. Also, comparing it to the other FedEx accidents like FedEx Express Flight 630, it had more damage and more long-lasting importance. The entire plane was submerged in the Subic Bay. If you're going to delete this article, then delete almost all the FedEx accidents Wikipedia articles. They all have the same amount of notability as this one. We got plenty of sources and a full report. Plus, the accident report clearly listed recommendations and changes after this accident. The plane was also declared a hull loss with the entire plane being completely submerged and destroyed except the cockpit. Zaptain United (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WHATABOUTX is not an argument. We evaluate the notability of events on their individual merit, not based on other articles. Just because recommendations were issued doesn't mean that they were implemented. Can you prove that the accident actually led to changes in procedures and had lasting effects? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An event can also be notable without a lasting effect per wikipedia:EVENTCRITERIA point 2, if the event had widespread coverage, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok… and where is that re-analysis? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrxtQv6zUuo. Also in the report it stated on page 158, that because of this accident, Boeing revised the MD-11 Flight Crew Operating Manual to provide additional guidance to flight crews. The guidance states that if any two of the following alerts are displayed simultaneously, the crew should use these alerts as valid indications to immediately refer to the “Airspeed Lost, Suspect, or Erratic” checklist: “SEL ELEV FEEL MAN”; “SEL FADEC ALTN’; “SEL FLAP LIM OVRD.” https://web.archive.org/web/20220209071829/https://fdx.alpa.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=38G%2BwiGL7qs%3D&tabid=3202 Zaptain United (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube is an unreliable source and the person who published the recreation of the event is not a subject-matter expert (see WP:SPS). Although there was a change in procedure (thank you for finding it), the coverage is still subpar and we're still lacking a secondary source which is required per WP:WHYN.^[1] Maybe as an alternative, the article could be merged into Pitot tube#Aircraft and accidents or FedEx Express#Major incidents and accidents. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't these secondary sources, that are used in the article?

FedEx MD-11 in Subic Bay overrun | News | Flight Global

FEDEX CREW SURVIVES CRASH CARRIER LOSES COURT ROUND | Journal of Commerce

I thought these were secondary sources? Zaptain United (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are all first-hand news reports of the accident so they all qualify as primary sources. Secondary sources normally contain analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event based on primary sources. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of information of this accident. Also, the DC-10 and MD-11 have had incidents involving anomalous airspeed indications. It was a problem affecting the aircraft like the bounce landing problem. It caused two different World Airways incidents and some minor incidents. It is clear that blockage of pitot tubes has affected those planes. What makes this accident different is that this was a hull loss and caused changes to prevent blockage of pitot tubes on Md-11 planes. I think it can stand on its own.https://web.archive.org/web/20220209071829/https://fdx.alpa.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=38G%2BwiGL7qs%3D&tabid=3202 Zaptain United (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only real-time coverage, no retrospective analysis. Wikipedia is not a collection of news articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't these secondary sources, that are used in the article?

FedEx MD-11 in Subic Bay overrun | News | Flight Global

FEDEX CREW SURVIVES CRASH CARRIER LOSES COURT ROUND | Journal of Commerce Zaptain United (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources.

Keep WP:N, WP:V [50] [51] [52] [53] just a mention here. There are some more bits of analysis out there available. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first source only mentions the accident as part of statistics and there’s no significant coverage; the second source contains no mention of the accident; the third is a database entry so it doesn’t establish notability; the fourth is better than the rest but still does not contain significant coverage. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 11:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Aviationwikiflight:, please learn what a secondary source is. All references in the nominated article are secondary sources. Aviation accident investigation bodies are indepenent of airlines and aircraft manufacturers, and are no primary sources. This applies to other articles you have nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: Per WP:SECONDARY, A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Per WP:NOTNEWS, Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. Sources 1,3,5, and 6 are all either primary or first-hand breaking news coverage of the event; sources 2 and 4 are tertiary as they're databases. None of these sources include any sort of "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis" based on primary sources. There are clearly zero sources in the article that are secondary (nor in the others that I nominated). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make them "primary sources". This is a bizzare reinterpretation of what "primary source" is, and it's a troubling one. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly a bizarre nor troubling interpretation. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS:
[...] Most reliable sources in academia name typical contemporary newspaper stories as primary sources.
Several academic research guides name newspaper articles written at the same time as the event as one kind of primary source.^[a] Yale University's guide to comparative literature lists newspaper articles as both primary and secondary sources, depending on whether they contain an interpretation of primary source material.^[1] Other university libraries address newspaper sources in more detail, for instance:
"[...] A newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events".^[2]

"[...] A recently published journal or newspaper article on the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court case would be read as a secondary source, because the author is interpreting an historical event. An article on the case that was published in 1955 could be read as a primary source that reveals how writers were interpreting the decision immediately after it was handed down".^[3]

"Characteristically, primary sources are contemporary to the events and people described[.] [...] In writing a narrative of the political turmoil surrounding the 2000 U.S. presidential election, a researcher will likely tap newspaper reports of that time for factual information on the events. The researcher will use these reports as primary sources because they offer direct or firsthand evidence of the events, as they first took place".^[4]

"[...] Traditionally, however, newspapers are considered primary sources. The key, in most cases, is determining the origin of the document and its proximity to the actual event".^[5]
Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly not a bizarre reinterpretation that an air accident investigation is a primary source. These are classic primary sources for the question as to what happened in an aviation accident. That they analyse the question of what happened, and pull together evidence, recordings and interviews is not enough to make them secondary. They are primary in the sense that any piece of research analysis is primary. They are a studied account of what happened. Research, government reports etc., are all primary sources for the same reason. See, for instance, [54], or any such guide. The official air accident investigation report is certainly a primary source.
But the question usually has some shades of grey. The question as to whether information is primary or secondary often depends on the question asked of the source. But what question are you asking here? If the question is "is this air accident notable" then it clearly makes no sense to argue that notability is demonstrated by the existence of the air accident investigation report. Every air accident has one of those. So either the argument is that they are all, by definition, notable, or else the existence of such a report can add nothing to an indication of notability. If they are all notable, there needs to be an SNG saying so. The existence of this primary source can add nothing to the question. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you're confusing Wikipedia:Party and person. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 07:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Gilman, Todd. "Comparative Literature: Primary, Secondary & Tertiary Sources". Yale University Library. Archived from the original on February 6, 2017. Retrieved February 10, 2017.
^ "Primary, secondary and tertiary sources: Secondary". libguides.jcu.edu.au. Queensland, Australia: James Cook University. Retrieved October 22, 2020.
^ "Primary and Secondary Sources". Ithaca College Library. Archived from the original on June 18, 2017. Retrieved June 15, 2017.
^ González, Luis A. (2014). "Identifying Primary and Secondary Sources". Indiana University Libraries. Retrieved March 18, 2021.
^ Sanford, Emily (2010). "Primary and Secondary Sources: An Overview". Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan. Archived from the original on 22 September 2011.

^
See for example:
- Knowlton, Steven. "Primary sources: A guide for historians: Introduction". Princeton University Library.
  
  Lee, Corliss. "Finding Historical Primary Sources: Getting Started". UC Berkeley Libraries.
  
  Bell, Emily. "Library Research Guide: History of Science: Introduction: What is a Primary Source?". Harvard University Library.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to FedEx Express#Major incidents and accidents, suggested by the nom. in a reply above, so presumably the nom. is content too. This over the other suggestion as this article already contains mention of this accident and salient details. It is not a keep, because we have no secondary sources, and no sustained interest in this event. All we have is the accident investigation (all crashes have these) and a couple of contemporary news accounts that are primary per WP:PRIMARYNEWS and nothing that is WP:SUSTAINED. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Street

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: better to relist to get more feedback
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Norlk (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Queen's Road East#Anton Street. Redirects are cheap, and I see no reason why a redirect would not be appropriate. Yue🌙 23:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stations

Meherullanagar railway station

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

A minor railway station with no major coverage. The only existing mentions are either primary or surface coverage on map/travel sites. Fails WP:GNG. Garsh (talk) 13:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom Somajyoti ✉ 19:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NTRAINSTATION "Train stations have no inherent notability". — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raina railway station

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 10:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation Proposed deletions

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

Transportation-related Images and media for Deletion

None at present

Transportation-related Miscellany for deletion

None at present

Transportation-related Templates for Deletion

None at present

Transportation-related Categories for Discussion

None at present

Transportation-related Deletion Review

None at present

Transportation-related Redirects for Discussion

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

[1] We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources.

[3] Gilman, Todd. "Comparative Literature: Primary, Secondary & Tertiary Sources". Yale University Library. Archived from the original on February 6, 2017. Retrieved February 10, 2017.

[4] "Primary, secondary and tertiary sources: Secondary". libguides.jcu.edu.au. Queensland, Australia: James Cook University. Retrieved October 22, 2020.

[5] "Primary and Secondary Sources". Ithaca College Library. Archived from the original on June 18, 2017. Retrieved June 15, 2017.

[6] González, Luis A. (2014). "Identifying Primary and Secondary Sources". Indiana University Libraries. Retrieved March 18, 2021.

[7] Sanford, Emily (2010). "Primary and Secondary Sources: An Overview". Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan. Archived from the original on 22 September 2011.

[2] See for example:
Knowlton, Steven. "Primary sources: A guide for historians: Introduction". Princeton University Library.

Lee, Corliss. "Finding Historical Primary Sources: Getting Started". UC Berkeley Libraries.

Bell, Emily. "Library Research Guide: History of Science: Introduction: What is a Primary Source?". Harvard University Library.

[8] Knowlton, Steven. "Primary sources: A guide for historians: Introduction". Princeton University Library.

Lee, Corliss. "Finding Historical Primary Sources: Getting Started". UC Berkeley Libraries.

Bell, Emily. "Library Research Guide: History of Science: Introduction: What is a Primary Source?". Harvard University Library.

[9] Knowlton, Steven. "Primary sources: A guide for historians: Introduction". Princeton University Library.

[10] Lee, Corliss. "Finding Historical Primary Sources: Getting Started". UC Berkeley Libraries.

[11] Bell, Emily. "Library Research Guide: History of Science: Introduction: What is a Primary Source?". Harvard University Library.

[1]

[a]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]