Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation

Shortcut
  • WP:DELTRANS
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.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Transportation.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


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

Mont-Tremblant/Lac Ouimet Water Aerodrome

Mont-Tremblant/Lac Ouimet Water Aerodrome (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)

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

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Transportation, and Canada. Zinnober9 (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The 15 March 2007 Canada Flight Supplement mentioned in the article is a valid reference. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The nominator is mistaken about the source. The information is not sourced from, or claimed to be sourced from the Nav Canada Wikipedia article, but rather the Canada Water Aerodrome Supplement. The link to the Wikipedia article is for clarity as the CWAS does not appear to be available online other than for purchase from Nav Canada. - ZLEA T\C 07:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 zebra escape

2024 zebra escape (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)

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

85th percentile speed

85th percentile speed (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)

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

Lamelas halt

Lamelas halt (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)

Does not appear to be notable (and it has been affirmatively established by sitewide consensus that train stations are not inherently notable). The first source is just an entry in a list, and the second only supports the line the station is on being closed. There is nothing of substance provided about the station itself. Could potentially be redirected to Sabor line. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pickering Lumber Co. 12

Pickering Lumber Co. 12 (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)

I am unable to find any significant coverage (really, any coverage at all) of this locomotive in secondary sources. Appears to fail GNG. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and California. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sadly as a railfan, I must vote for deletion. There is no coverage other than the Nyles Canyon Railway's blog for sourcing, and some photos of the locomotive. Not meeting GNG. Some coverage in this book, but it's a directory listing [1] Oaktree b (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If sources cannot be found then this should be redirected to Niles Canyon Railway#Notable steam locomotives (although that section might be better named just "Steam locomotives") where it is mentioned. I don't see any benefit in deleting the sourced information present in the article. Thryduulf (talk) 08:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, apologies for the late reply.
    As expected and mentioned in your message, no additional sources about her have been found, therefore, i completely agree to redirect her page to Niles_Canyon_Railway#Notable_steam_locomotives, and delete her page.
    I'm glad we could come up with a solution ^^ Christian40213 (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You do realize the one and only source in the article is a photo with no additional information from some dude's blog, right? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is that relevant to what I wrote? I'm not arguing to keep the article in its present state or merge unverified information. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The only sourced information within the article is that the locomotive showed up at an event in 1986. You said I don't see any benefit in deleting the sourced information present in the article but I don't see any valid sourced information. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Road 89 (Iran)

Road 89 (Iran) (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)

Contested PROD. I cannot find any evidence that Road 89 actually exists. The Google Map between the purported termini does not show any road labels (where it does show others in the area. One of the two provided sources is a map that shows multiple labels on the route, none that match the Farsi script for 89. The other source appears to be about the paving of a road in Gowharan, Hormozgan, but it says nothing about Road 89. The Wikipedia article List of roads and highways in Iran has nothing on it. With the sources failing verification and no other sources to be found, even if it exists, it's certainly not notable. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Articles which are entirely unverifiable actively harm Wikipedia's accuracy and reliability and should be deleted in all cases. Another editor raised this issue on the article creator's talk page to no response. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we shouldn't keep articles roads that are debatable whether or not they even exist. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MV Linga

MV Linga (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)

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland. Kpgjhpjm 07:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't many references that can be used other the primary sources from the owner/operator of the vessel, there is also this one though: https://www.faktaomfartyg.se/linga_2002.htm
I don't understand how MV Linga is the only Shetland Islands Council ferry article that has been getting brought up for editor issues, despite it being the same layout and similar text style to the rest of the ferry articles that I have made.
It would also be better to be more explicit with which changes would be good as it doesn't make sense that you're not allowed to make an article using references to the owners website. ZetShip (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to SIC Ferries. The most applicable guideline appears to be WP:NVEHICLES, which is an essay, and anyway pretty much defaults to WP:GNG for individual vehicles. Thus secondary sourcing beyond database entries would be needed here. Unfortunately the most I can find is a fairly routine news source [2]. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but unless more sources come up - such as an offline news feature on the vessel - as an WP:ATD I recommend redirect to SIC Ferries. ResonantDistortion 15:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft

Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft (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)

Only appears to be mentioned in the context of long German words; I can't find a source which gives significant coverage of this "nonexistent sub-organization of the DDSG" beyond its name being long and funny. As Wikipedia is WP:NOTADICTIONARY, this might be best saved for Wikitionary or maybe a brief mention on an article about German compound nouns. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. The page's purpose seems more of a gimmick than anything else. Peculiarities of a given language can simply be mentioned in the language's article itself. ArkHyena (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Poorly written, very little evidence of notability or even really its existence as a word. However, the word at least does appear in the Guinness Book of Records 1996 (which can be borrowed via Internet Archive, see [3]), but with the "ä" given as "ae" instead. But they don't tell us where they got the word from, and in any case per WP:RSPSS the Guinness World Records "should not be used to establish notability".
Some other observations of mine here, maybe not relevant to deleting the article itself but may be helpful anyway:
  1. This article was created in 2005, which from what I can tell had lower standards for sourcing or notability than today, unless I'm mistaken? (If it does, that may explain the poor quality of the article as it is now)
  2. The only inline source in use as of writing is from h2g2, a user generated encyclopedia.
  3. Is there even a source for the suborganisation being nonexistent at all? It feels like a lot of this article is possibly original analysis, which would fail WP:OR.
Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Organizations, Transportation, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sources I find are the Urban Dictionary and various word groups, none of which help notability. Almost survived for 20 yrs in wiki without deletion. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets GNG, though the English language sources only show novelty, and the German sources aren't fantastic - however between the tango, the company, and the fact the word is used in German as an example of German compound word usage. [4] is one example. SportingFlyer T·C 22:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like merging with Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft is a viable option. Nardog (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Merging into Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft is a good idea if there's a couple reliable sources, yeah. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the word is notable in its own right given the tango and the discussion of its length in reliable German language sources, but given there's another merge suggested to a different page, I think a merge to the company makes more sense if that is the chosen deletion alternative. SportingFlyer T·C 03:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge The German wikipedia has more context and sources. This might not need a stand-alone article but there's enough coverage to avoid deletion. Reywas92Talk 00:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • :Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC) Striking user banned for this behavior (User_talk:Okmrman#Please_stop). Reywas92Talk 13:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whether it actually existed or not, reliable sources have long reported it and it has gone down in legend as one of the longest words in history. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a particularly good reason to keep the article though -- "gone down in legend"? Really? Come gather 'round, kids, while I tell you the story of the great Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft. How do sources "report" a word? None of what you're saying makes any reasonable sense. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge to German nouns § Compounds, where a brief mention might be appropriate. You might even be able to justify a standalone article on long German words, with this example certainly worth mentioning, but WP:NOTDICT and WP:NOPAGE pretty strongly favor not having a standalone article here. There's simply nothing to say about the word itself other than "it's long". 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft, just one of many made-up extensions of that word. There are no reliable sources, unlike for the Rinderkennzeichnungs- und Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz, which used to be a real law. —Kusma (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes-AMG G 65

Mercedes-AMG G 65 (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)

I think the article is not needed. G class is a perfectly good page, and this is a minor variant. Saad Mirza (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Category:Mercedes-Benz G-Class. There are nine articles involved, but the others are not up for deletion. This one is sourced and informative. Why delete one and keep the others? Mercedes is globally known, and a top-of-the-line brand as auto brands go. — Maile (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no sourced information on this model in the main G-Class page, which is already extremely long. It makes a lot sense to leave this so people can read about this variant, without having to scroll through that page to find a brief summary. In fact the G-class has so many variants over its history, having smaller article like this that is actually about one design is much more straightforward. The main article has really become about the decades long history of the G-class now. A75 (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am surprised there is no interest in merging the content with sources, as there is nothing on the main page right now, but a brief unsourced summary. I highly recommend preserving the content, its one of only a handful of V-12 suv in history. A75 (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CFAV Barkerville

CFAV Barkerville (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)

Article says absolutely nothing about the subject besides its name. There is no reason for this article to exist separately from Naval Large Tugboat. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CFAV Haro

CFAV Haro (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)

Article says absolutely nothing about the subject besides identifying its namesake. There is no reason for this article to exist separately from Naval Large Tugboat. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton & Hove bus route 5

Brighton & Hove bus route 5 (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)

Non-notable WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussion of similar recent deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6 --woodensuperman 12:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton & Hove bus route 2

Brighton & Hove bus route 2 (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)

Non-notable WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussion of similar recent deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6 --woodensuperman 12:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton & Hove bus route 1

Brighton & Hove bus route 1 (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)

Non-notable WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussion of similar recent deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6 --woodensuperman 12:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Run of the mill bus, only sources are timetables bus maps or self published fansites. Ajf773 (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton & Hove Breeze routes

Brighton & Hove Breeze routes (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)

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

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

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

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 merge‎ to List of demolished piers in Hong Kong. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 01:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wilmer Street Ferry Pier

Wilmer Street Ferry Pier (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)

Ferry pier in Hong Kong that doesn’t seem notable. I couldn’t find a suitable redirect target but a merge or redirect may be possible. Mccapra (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Hong Kong. Mccapra (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to List of demolished piers in Hong Kong per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I found passing mentions in a search for the English name here and here. The pier's Chinese name is (traditional Chinese: 威利麻街碼頭; simplified Chinese: 威利麻街码头). There are a few sentences of coverage in this book.

    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) 08:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

makes sense to me. Mccapra (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of demolished piers in Hong Kong then redirect, as suggested by @Cunard. Found a few other mentions:
  • https://archive.org/details/NPCM19600708/page/4/mode/2up - China Mail announcing (briefly) ferry services to Lamma
  • https://archive.org/details/isbn_9782012422087/page/234/mode/2up French-language tour guide saying briefly where to catch a ferry to Lamma
  • https://archive.org/details/NPCM19500825/page/n3/mode/2up China Mail announcing cross-harbor vehicle ferry from Western to Shamshuipo - read liberally, this article approaches significant coverage
Oblivy (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2024 (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.

List of explorations

List of explorations (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)

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Archaeology, Geography, Spaceflight, and Transportation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, at least in its current form. I have no idea what the ambit is supposed to be - what are "state societies"? Does the author have any idea what they are intending, as that term is linked to the utterly uninformative Complex society? If what is meant is "state-sponsored exploration", then why does it include entires like the hypothetical discovery of Hawaii in late antiquity, or Livingstone's privately funded explorations? No rhyme or reason here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A society with a state; the opposite of a stateless society. It's a well-defined and widely used term in the social sciences. – Joe (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah so. That should link to Complex society#States then, I guess? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, edit, and update. A 2001 long-term article, the page lists the first sponsored human expeditions of various locals. The topic is notable, links to various expeditionary pages, and groups these expeditions on one page. The criteria needs to be worded differently, but that's a minor point in the overall scope of the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:ARTICLEAGE. When it was written is not proof it should be kept. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Essays have some who agree and others who disagree. Early Wikipedia articles which have stood the test of 23 years of time should receive more leeway and correction. This one has a very good premise which can be refined and expanded. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, on the one hand, this is a very bare-bones list, and seems to have been so for quite a while. There's no real context, and it isn't exactly the best-formatted list ever. That said, I do think that the idea behind it is notable enough. I personally think that it should be rewritten as prose and moved to History of human exploration, but it could also be rewritten as prose and merged with History of human migration (though they are substantially different, especially when it comes to things like oceans or planets). I don't think keeping it as a list is a good idea, even though List of explorers is a good, closely related list, as explorations really should have some explanation and context to them, whereas explorers don't really need that. Ships & Space(Edits) 00:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would agree with Ships&Space. Overhauling should be done, not deletion. Lorstaking (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not opposed to a rewrite as a prose article. But in the 23 years the article has been around, nothing has been done to fix the problem. I am not sure why you believe it will be fixed in another 23 years. A deletion may encourage a new article to be created that is actually notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

EMR Regional

EMR Regional (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)

I can't see that there's any coverage of this line of services that is distinct from East Midlands Railway, nor do I think this is a good candidate for a WP:CFORK. The only additional content that exists here is a WP:DIRECTORY of every route this provider operates on. BrigadierG (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and United Kingdom. BrigadierG (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The coverage of EMR Regional relates to its plans to refurbish its rolling stock, which seems to be smaller and older than that used by EMR Intercity. I found several references for refurbishment and added them to the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the main scope of the page is to describe the routes its operating on. Because An article that is only about refurbishments of something is almost never allowed and can be placed on the relevant part of the article instead. Plus it is not titled refurbishment of the EMR fleet. It seems as though EMR are either brand new trains (class 810, due to enter within 12 months), sourcing newer trains (class 170, built 1998-2005) or in the process of refurbishment after it withdrew its HSTs, 153s, 156s and even the 180s. JuniperChill (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    not only that, but please also note WP:REFBOMB. No more than three sources per sentence, plus I am not sure about the reliability of these sources. JuniperChill (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    > Actually, the main scope of the page is to describe the routes its operating on.
    Have you been familiar with the discourse surrounding similar subjects such as lists of airline destinations? I'm really loathe to have more of these kinds of big piles of information on Wikipedia without further context? There's moderate consensus (albeit several years old) that these things are generally not good bases for articles. BrigadierG (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These are just reprints of press releases - replacing some of your trains is just a normal run-of-the-mill activity when you operate a train line. I'm not contesting that the operator itself is notable, just the idea that its two train services need separate articles of their own. See WP:ROTM BrigadierG (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Selective merge to East Midlands Railway. This article is little more than a timetable at present without any justification for being split from the East Midlands Railway article. Eastmain refbombing with press releases actually makes me more convinced this isn't a notable topic. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect or Selective merge with East Midlands Railway, this article seems to be copied/duplicated from that article. Any changes of rolling stock can easily be under headings in the table on the main article. Should the EMR article get long in the future, a split can be raised then. The refurbishment of trains is not exactly a notable reason for a separate article, if it were more than just a sub-brand, like a division or another company, then maybe the situation would be different. Otherwise the refurbishment of some trains can be largely just one sentence at EMR, as it is largely a minor routine event for train operators. DankJae 19:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Selective merge with East Midlands Railway - as already mentioned above, the article as it is is nothing more than a list of routes with little additional content; nothing that would be out of place in the main EMR article. Danners430 (talk) 11:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

College Road, Hong Kong

College Road, Hong Kong (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)

Article was previously declined for prod. Rationale is a very simple case of failing WP:INHERITED. The specific application of this policy is also noted at WP:NROAD BrigadierG (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Roadways, which says:

    Road networks: International road networks (such as the International E-road network), Interstate, national, state and provincial highways are typically notable. Topic notability for county roads, regional roads (such as Ireland's regional roads), local roads, streets and motorway service areas may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject.

    Sources
    1. Selection of two sources:
      1. "書院道精英地段" [Elite area of College Road]. The Sun (in Chinese). 2012-05-19. Archived from the original on 2024-05-12. Retrieved 2024-05-12.

        The article notes: "九龍塘區的豪宅內街以寧靜見稱，書院道同樣具備此項特色，其中坐落街道頭段的勝豐園，乃沿街老牌豪宅屋苑之一，樓齡約三十八年，兩座物業合共提供約48個單位，"

        From Google Translate: "The inner streets of luxury houses in Kowloon Tong District are famous for their tranquility. College Road also has this feature. Situated at the beginning of the street, Sheng Feng Yuan is one of the old luxury housing estates along the street. It is about 38 years old and has two properties. A total of about 48 units are provided,"

        The article notes: "其中步行已可達多家名校的書院道（College Road），盡佔名校網優勢，而書院道豪宅的入場費則由千萬餘以至逾半億元俱備。書院道鄰近喇沙利道，兩條豪宅街道的命名均源自區內名校之一的喇沙書院。"

        From Google Translate: "Among them, College Road is within walking distance of many famous schools, taking advantage of the network of famous schools. The admission fee for luxury houses on College Road ranges from more than 10 million to more than 500 million yuan. College Road is adjacent to La Salle Road. The two luxury streets are named after La Salle College, one of the famous schools in the area."

        The article notes: "書院道除了四周環境清幽恬靜外，最吸引買家之處，是優質學府選擇眾多，對於有意讓子女入讀名校的家長，吸引力自然特別高。至於在該街道一帶的名校除喇沙書院外，尚有瑪利諾修院學校、拔萃小學及黃笏南中學等。"

        From Google Translate: "In addition to the quiet and peaceful surroundings, College Road is most attractive to buyers because of its wide selection of high-quality schools. It is particularly attractive to parents who intend to enroll their children in prestigious schools. As for the famous schools in this street area, in addition to La Salle College, there are also Maryknoll Convent School, Diocesan Primary School and Wong Wat South Secondary School."

      2. "書院道匯聚黃金屋" [Collection of Golden Houses on College Road]. Oriental Daily (in Chinese). 2012-09-30. Archived from the original on 2024-05-03. Retrieved 2024-05-03.

        The article notes: "九龍塘不但具備傳統豪宅區的魅力，更吸引之處是坐擁九龍名校網，其中步行已可達多家名校的書院道（College Road），尤其凸顯名校網優勢，老牌豪宅及豪宅新貴散落於寧靜的街道上，為講求實用的用家與愛好新廈的豪客提供不同選擇。"

        From Google Translate: "Kowloon Tong not only has the charm of a traditional luxury area, but what is even more attractive is that it is located in the prestigious Kowloon School Network. College Road (College Road), which is within walking distance of many famous schools, particularly highlights the advantages of the prestigious school network. Old luxury homes and upstart luxury homes are scattered here. The quiet street provides different options for practical users and high-end buyers who like new buildings."

        The article notes: "其中坐落街道頭段的勝豐園，乃沿街老牌豪宅屋苑之一，樓齡約三十八年，..."

        From Google Translate: "Among them, Sheng Feng Yuan, located at the end of the street, is one of the old luxury housing estates along the street. It is about 38 years old. ..."

        The article notes: "書院道另一個老牌屋苑為博文閣，坐落街道的中段，由於位於內街之中，加上面向喇沙書院的大球場，環境清幽，視野亦較開揚。"

        From Google Translate: "Another well-established housing estate on College Road is Bowen Court, located in the middle of the street. Because it is located in an inner street and faces the stadium of La Salle College, it has a quiet environment and a relatively open view."

        The article notes: "除了老牌豪宅外，書院道近年有一個矚目的新一代豪宅落成，乃由興勝創建發展的EI8HT COLLEGE。"

        From Google Translate: "In addition to the old luxury houses, a new generation of luxury houses has been completed on College Road in recent years, which is EI8HT COLLEGE founded and developed by Xingsheng."

    2. Additional sources:
      1. "九龍塘樂苑 雅緻裝潢闊露台" [Kowloon Tong Lok Garden Elegantly decorated wide terrace]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2013-08-30. p. D5.

        The article notes: "位於九龍塘的書院道，屬於內街，靜處一隅，由於街道比較短，因此供應的豪宅僅約10個左右。中原豪宅Stately Home九龍豪宅副區域聯席董事何維進稱，書院道的豪宅樓齡十分參差，其中最新的書院道8號於2011年入夥，而最舊的一批，樓齡逾50年。"

        From Google Translate: "Located on College Road in Kowloon Tong, it is an inner street and is located in a quiet corner. Since the street is relatively short, there are only about 10 luxury homes available. Ho Wei-jin, deputy regional co-director of Stately Home Kowloon luxury homes, said that the age of the luxury homes on College Road is very different. The newest one, No. 8 College Road, was occupied in 2011, while the oldest ones are more than 50 years old."

        The article notes: "由於鄰近九龍城，位處名校網，故書院道除家長客、低調廠家外，均屬用家，放盤有限交投不多。 最新一宗成交於4月份錄得，為書院道8號中層，實用面積1,758平方呎，建築面積2,446平方呎，為屋苑最後一間餘貨，以5,190萬元成交。"

        From Google Translate: "As it is close to Kowloon City and is located in a prestigious school network, College Road is owned by users except for parents and low-key manufacturers. The listings are limited and there is not much transaction. The latest transaction was recorded in April. It is a middle-floor building at No. 8 College Road, with a salable area of ​​1,758 square feet and a built-up area of ​​2,446 square feet. It is the last remaining unit in the housing estate and was sold for HK$51.9 million."

      2. "香港8號" [Hong Kong No. 8]. Sing Pao Daily News (in Chinese). 2011-11-14. p. B3.

        The article notes: "書院道因鄰近的喇沙書院而得名，現時書院道8號為新盤Eight College，由興勝創建（896）發展，屬於香港六大建築集團之一，估計發展商命名時取8號的 諧音「發」，著重其「意頭」。 該樓盤毗鄰九龍塘火車站，交通便捷，並鄰近校網，包括香港城巿大學、香港浸會大學、喇沙書院、拔萃小學，以及耀中國際小學∕幼兒園。"

        From Google Translate: "College Road is named after the nearby La Salle College. Currently, No. 8 College Road is the new Eight College, developed by Xingsheng Construction (896), which is one of the six major construction groups in Hong Kong. It is estimated that the developer took No. 8 when naming it. It is homophonic to "fa", emphasizing its "meaning". The property is adjacent to the Kowloon Tong Railway Station, with convenient transportation, and is close to school networks, including City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Baptist University, La Salle College, Diocesan Primary School, and Yew Chung International Primary School/Kindergarten."

      3. "九龍塘明麗園中層 環境清幽" [Ming Lai Garden, Kowloon Tong, middle floor, quiet environment]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2019-11-01. p. D19.

        The article notes: "九龍塘書院道，是傳統豪宅物業集中地，該地段以路闊車流量少，環境清幽見稱，放盤向來罕有 ，其中明麗園中層單位，連車位叫價2,500萬元。"

        From Google Translate: "College Road, Kowloon Tong, is where traditional luxury properties are concentrated. The area is famous for its wide road, low traffic volume, and quiet environment. It has always been rare to find a listing. Among them, the mid-rise unit in Ming Lai Garden, including a parking space, is priced at NT$25 million."

      4. Ng, Chi-fai 伍志輝 (2015-06-20). "靚盤巡禮：九龍塘明麗園　 裝修新淨　環境清幽" [Tour of beautiful properties: Kowloon Tong Ming Lai Garden, newly renovated and clean, with a quiet environment]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). p. B4.

        The article notes: "九龍塘書院道附近名校多，行車路面寬闊，車流量不高，環境清幽，同時享有鄰近九龍城的方便購物地利，沿路新舊物業都有一定捧場客。 明麗園座落書院道近衙前圍道方向，屬區內老牌大宅之一，盤源向來不多，"

        From Google Translate: "There are many famous schools near College Road in Kowloon Tong. The road surface is wide, the traffic volume is not high, and the environment is quiet. It also enjoys the convenient shopping location near Kowloon City. New and old properties along the road have a certain number of fans. Ming Lai Garden is located on College Road near Nga Tsing Wai Road. It is one of the old-style mansions in the area. There are not many houses in the area."

      5. "書院道8號連平台 裝潢雅緻" [No. 8, College Road, with terrace, elegant decoration]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2015-04-17. p. D5.

        The article notes: "九龍塘書院道街道比較短，故此提供的豪宅物業不多，樓齡一般由37至54年不等。 ... 而書院道8號，屬目前該處樓齡最新的物業，僅4年樓"

        From Google Translate: "The street of College Road in Kowloon Tong is relatively short, so there are not many luxury properties available. The age of the buildings generally ranges from 37 to 54 years. ... No. 8 College Road is currently the newest property there, being only 4 years old."

      6. "書院道樂苑低層 特高樓底" [Low floor, extra high floor, Dao Lok Court, College]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2013-12-20. p. D7.

        The article notes: "九龍塘書院道可供二手轉售的屋苑，除勝豐園外，大部分均在10層以下；至於樓齡方面，除書院道8號於11年入夥外，餘下多已超過40年。"

        From Google Translate: "Most of the housing estates available for second-hand resale in College Road, Kowloon Tong, with the exception of Sing Fung Garden, are below 10 storeys. As for the age of the buildings, except for No. 8 College Road, which was occupied in 11 years, most of the remaining housing estates are over 40 years old."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow College Road, Hong Kong (traditional Chinese: 書院道; simplified Chinese: 书院道) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get an assessment of newly found sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I don't see what's significant in the sources provided. It's a road with buildings in it. Geschichte (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources allow College Road, Hong Kong, to meet Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Roadways, which says roads "are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject". The sources discuss the road's namesake, the luxury housing estates on the road, how the prestigious schools in the area affect the prices of houses on the road, how parents and manufacturers are the primary owners of the road's units or property, and the road's attributes (wide, short, quiet, and low traffic volume). A non-notable road would not receive this depth of discussion in reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 06:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My problem with the sources presented is that they're all articles on property, not articles on the road itself, which is a short residential street. A proper article on a road - looking at London as an example - will have details on history, naming, events which occurred there, which the sources don't specifically cover. I don't think any of the additional sources count, and I'd like to see an additional source specifically written on the road before I think this would meet WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 04:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Sun article is titled "Elite area of College Road" and extensively discusses the road's background and attributes. It is not an article focused on the properties on the road.

      The Oriental Daily article is titled "Collection of Golden Houses on College Road". The article's thesis is that "the road has old luxury homes and upstart luxury homes scattered throughout", and the article backs up this statement by describing the various properties that dot the road. Significant coverage of what is on the road is significant coverage of the road. The article provides further context by noting that the road is close to prestigious schools and that it is a quiet, inner street.

      The sources do discuss why College Road is named College Road (its name was inspired by the nearby La Salle College). There is no requirement in Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Roadways for the sources to discuss "events that occurred there". College Road's notability is not derived from events that occurred there. College Road's notability is derived from being dotted with luxury properties from its proximity to prestigious schools. Cunard (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: College Road has received significant coverage in reliable sources so meets Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Roadways. If the consensus is that the road is not notable, the article still should not be deleted. Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, the article should be merged to Kowloon Tsai, the area the road is in.

    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) 06:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 126

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 126 (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)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG. There is significant coverage of FMVSS 126 in a large number of sources in Google Scholar and Google Books, including at least three entire articles on this subject: [5] [6] [7]. James500 (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG.Expandinglight5 (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    GNG still does not mean it must have a standalone article; per WP:NOPAGE, it's more appropriate to cover the topic in context elsewhere. There are also sources on the European Union's regulation of electronic stability control, on Australia's regulation of electronic stability control, on Canada's regulation of electronic stability control, on Argentina's regulation of electronic stability control, etc.... I'm sure an additional source for each beyond those in the main article can be found to satisfy GNG but that doesn't mean a duplicative page is necessary for this. Reywas92Talk 17:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There does not appear to be any duplication. The laws of one country are not the same thing as the laws of another. In any event, there comes a point where the sheer volume of coverage of a topic is so large that it cannot be stuffed into a single article; and in such cases the parent article needs to be split. Electronic stability control is such a topic. There are hundreds of articles in Google Scholar that are entirely about electronic stability control, to the point where the words "electronic stability control" actually appear verbatim in their titles. The article Electronic stability control is already 62kB long and does not need to be made longer. James500 (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Um no, page length is measured by prose text and it's only 25kb/4,000 words long, well under WP:LENGTH's guideline. Expansion of that article including its regulation section is absolutely more than welcome. But if you think it should be split, a single country's regulation of it is the wrong way to do so (a different section or a general Regulation of electronic stability control would be better if warranted). This US regulation page is so short, it is duplicated in its entirety by the main article's "The United States followed, with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration implementing FMVSS 126, which requires ESC for all passenger vehicles under 10,000 pounds (4536 kg). The regulation phased in starting with 55% of 2009 models (effective 1 September 2008), 75% of 2010 models, 95% of 2011 models, and all 2012 and later models." This is unnecessary to be a separate page. Reywas92Talk 14:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This regulation does not duplicate the regulations of other countries. The sources about this regulation do not duplicate the sources about the regulations of other countries. WP:ARTN says "if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability". Accordingly, the fact that some of the content of this article is similar to the content of the parent article does not decrease the notability of the topic of this article. In any event, the article has now been expanded some new content that is not in the parent article, and more can be added. Likewise, the fact that this article is presently short is also irrelevant, because it can be expanded so as to make it much longer. In theory, this page could be moved to Regulation of electronic stability control, without prejudice to a future split, in order to speed up the creation of such an article, but this page should not be merged into another page (which would not have the page history of this page). James500 (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Electronic stability control#Regulation, where this is already discussed. The sources above would also be better in the main article than a separate page. Individual regulations rarely need their own articles and I don't see an exception here. Reywas92Talk 00:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Delete or WP:ATD Merge to Electronic stability control#Regulation or Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards#Crash avoidance both of which cover the subject. There are literally hundreds of these individual regulations, evidenced with the above Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Title 49 has around 35 regulations under "Crash avoidance", "Crashworthiness" with approximately 27 regulations, "Post-crash survivability" with five regulations, "Miscellaneous" with five regulations, "Other regulations relating to transportation" with approximately 54 "parts". Per The slippery slope is creating hundreds of dictionary type entries with mainly primary sourcing, at the expense of the parent articles. Per Reywas92 Individual regulations rarely need their own articles. The actual concept is supposed to be that there is "significant coverage" in reliable and independent sources that will allow the eventual writing of a "whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic", referred to as a permastub. Just because Wikipedia allegedly has unlimited space does not mean every aspect of a subject should be broken down to the smallest part. At a point, if an individual subject grows large enough then a split should be discussed. -- Otr500 (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The number of individual regulations is not excessively large. Hundreds of regulations is nothing compared to the 6 million articles we already have, or the hundreds of millions of topics that probably satisfy GNG. In any event, no one is arguing that all the regulations should have an article. We are only arguing that the regulations that satisfy GNG should have articles. And right now we are only arguing that this one regulation satisfies GNG, which means that right now we are only arguing for exactly one article. The slippery slope fallacy is not a reason for deletion or merger. In this case, the initial step is not demonstrably likely to result in the claimed effects. The article does not violate WP:NOTDICTIONARY in its present form. It is not a definition or a dictionary entry. In any event, the article can be expanded far beyond a definition. The sourcing is not primary. Reywas92 is not a policy or guideline. There is significant coverage in reliable and independent sources that will allow the eventual writing of a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. The article is not half a paragraph or a definition, and is, in any event, capable of being expanded far beyond that. The article is not a permastub, and is, in any event, capable of being expanded far beyond that. No one has argued that every aspect of a subject should be broken down to the smallest part. We have argued that topics that satisfy GNG are presumed to merit an article. Insisting on waiting until the parent article actually reaches 8,000 words is bound to result in the article becoming seriously unbalanced (WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:PROPORTION). That is one of the reasons that we don't try to stuff and stuff and stuff lots of notable topics into a single article. James500 (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "The number of individual regulations is not excessively large" Maybe not U.S. motor vehicles regulations, but internationally among all subjects there are – hundreds of thousand of regulations do not need articles. "capable of being expanded". So is the main article. There's simply no need to have this separate page at this point, regardless of your hypothetical of who would write articles on individual regulations. The sources you added are highly technical papers that I do not believe are particularly conducive for an article here. The article could easily have a "Testing procedures" section as well. "article becoming seriously unbalanced" There is no indication that this will happen and we can still split before that point. Reywas92Talk 15:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The total number of regulations on all subjects worldwide is irrelevant: not all regulations are equal. The USA is a large country with a correspondingly large number of motor vehicles and motor vehicle accidents. Motor vehicle safety is one of more important subjects on which regulations are made (because of the risk to life and property). US motor vehicle safety regulations are likely to receive more coverage than regulations from smaller countries on less important subjects. For example, a commencement order from Tuvalu (population 11,900) is not going receive anything remotely like the kind of coverage that US motor vehicle safety regulations are going to receive. The correct approach is to create standalone articles on those regulations that actually satisfy GNG. There is no evidence that an excessive number of regulations satisfy GNG. (There is no evidence that the number of regulations that do actually satisfy GNG is actually "hundreds of thousands" or even remotely close to that.) In fact, the number of regulations that satisfy GNG is, by definition, the number that is not excessive for our purposes. The point is that no one is arguing for a standalone article on every regulation in the world, we are only arguing for articles on the regulations that satisfy GNG. I think the three articles that I linked to above, and the rest of the 270 sources in Google Scholar, are conducive to an article on this regulation. James500 (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So write it. The vast majority of those sources are brief mentions of the regulation or sine with dwell test, which are perfectly conducive for inclusion in the main article for appropriate context of development and testing of electronic stability control. Reywas92Talk 14:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National University station

National University 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)

Neither source cited mentions a station with this name. Source 2 is also deprecated per WP:AOPLACES. I could not find other sources online. Please redirect this page to Line 1, Ho Chi Minh City Metro. Toadspike (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. A reminder that train stations are not presumed notable simply because they exist (see WP:NTRAINSTATION)
2. This is, in fact, a different station from Vietnam National University station in Hanoi. Toadspike (talk) 10:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is Listed as Generaly Unreliable not Depracated. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, my apologies. I didn't find out exactly which one the red symbol meant before publishing that comment. Toadspike (talk) 08:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' the station has been built, will soft open in July with full service in Q4 2024. I've added a link to support that. @Crcolas added a number of links to Vietnam news sites before me. With greater than two significant sources, should be an easy pass for GNG. Oblivy (talk) 12:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrightspeed X1

Wrightspeed X1 (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 article dates from 2006, a period when one might argue with success that Wikipedia was in a major growth phase, and that poorly sourced articles were acceptable on the basis that they might be improved. This one has been edited periodically, but not improved. It has a single source, and does not pass WP:GNG. It is interesting, but gives undue weight to the vehicle, which is only notable for its power train, not for anything else about it. There is thus no objection to merge and redirect as an outcome to this discussion, with the merge target being the source of the powertrain, or with the manufacturer of the chassis. There appears to be no individual article on the designer himself, or that might be a valid target. I am thus asking for consensus not only on the fate of the article, but on any merge target as well. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete I've found a few sources for this [8], [9] (Old CNET, so still good), [10], [11] but I feel they don't really have the WP:DEPTH here to satisfty WP:GNG, so I'm gonna second the nom here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Allan Nonymous By seconding the nomination please be aware that merge and redirect to a so far undetermined target is a suitable outcome. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Some coverage found, [12] and [13]. Merge to Wrightspeed or the Ariel Atom? I'm not sure. Oaktree b (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b Given that choice, I think it is more relevant to Wrightspeed than the Aerial Atom. However, Wrightspeed ends up at an article of a different name, but mainly about Wrightspeed. I think there needs to be some background work here by someone who can rationalise what is what. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see some support for redirect, but no consensus as to a target. We shouldn't need another full week to settle on a target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Wrightspeed" seems like a good redirect choice. Oaktree b (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Revo Powertrains which is the powertrain company founded by Mr. Wright (under the Wrightspeed name?). Redirect doesn't make sense to me as Revo doesn't include anything about this car. Oblivy (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airbiquity

Airbiquity (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 sources for this company are WP:ROUTINE coverage. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Software, Transportation, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean keep very difficult to find under all the regurgitated press releases but the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has done a couple of more substantial pieces on the company,[1][2] which looks to have been more prominent in the 2000s. (I don't think the articles are still available online – if anyone would like me to email the full text to review, let me know). I'm not yet fully convinced of notability – we would want to see decent coverage from more than one source – but the situation is not quite as bad as it looks. – Teratix ₵ 06:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cook, John (21 October 2005). "Ex-startup Airbiquity experiences a rebirth". Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
  2. ^ Cook, John (22 January 2008). "Airbiquity rebounds with funding, deals". Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I opened all of the refs, they are routine press releases, 404, tangential and such. Nothing to establish notability. A 1997 startup that had 50-100 employess before being bought up recently and has now disappeared. Desertarun (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you look for sources that weren't in the article? – Teratix ₵ 04:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep the page seems to be notable, and the routine coverage is not so bad, while better sources should be added by the locals or those who know the topic better. 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 08:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Redirect, perhaps to connected car as an AtD. I did do a reasonable BEFORE, and I don't see anything outside of routine business news, including the sources presented in this process. I agree with the source analysis by Desertarun. I see nothing which directly details why this failed startup is remarkable inside of its field. The rest is just fundraising and rewritten press releases, including links provided in this process. BusterD (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]



Stations

Mountain House Community station

Mountain House Community 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)

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Stations, and California. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nomination. Appears to be too soon for a standalone article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are already lots of references, and their number and length will grow as designs are finalized and coverage of the project and individual stations continues. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lamelas halt

Lamelas halt (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)

Does not appear to be notable (and it has been affirmatively established by sitewide consensus that train stations are not inherently notable). The first source is just an entry in a list, and the second only supports the line the station is on being closed. There is nothing of substance provided about the station itself. Could potentially be redirected to Sabor line. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National University station

National University 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)

Neither source cited mentions a station with this name. Source 2 is also deprecated per WP:AOPLACES. I could not find other sources online. Please redirect this page to Line 1, Ho Chi Minh City Metro. Toadspike (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. A reminder that train stations are not presumed notable simply because they exist (see WP:NTRAINSTATION)
2. This is, in fact, a different station from Vietnam National University station in Hanoi. Toadspike (talk) 10:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is Listed as Generaly Unreliable not Depracated. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, my apologies. I didn't find out exactly which one the red symbol meant before publishing that comment. Toadspike (talk) 08:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' the station has been built, will soft open in July with full service in Q4 2024. I've added a link to support that. @Crcolas added a number of links to Vietnam news sites before me. With greater than two significant sources, should be an easy pass for GNG. Oblivy (talk) 12:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation Proposed deletions

None at present

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Transportation&oldid=1224558743"