Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation

WP:DELTRANS

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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation/archive

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

Diamond V-Eight

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

Can't find any independent sources about this article - Jjpachano (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boulder Bridge and Ross Drive Bridge

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

Boulder Bridge exists, as does Ross Drive Bridge; I see no reason why we should have a one-line stub simply because these are listed on the NRHP together; even if expanded out this would still be a content fork of the two sub-articles. Hog Farm _Talk 05:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Washington, D.C.. Hog Farm _Talk 05:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm still shaking my head at this. Pointless. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, pointless. Athel cb (talk) 09:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the 2007 article Boulder Bridge which encompasses both as a U.S. National Register of Historic Places listing. The author who created this one in 2015 probably didn't notice the NRHP article was already in place. — Maile (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is here in case someone is searching using the formal NRHP name. Normally it would be a redirect, but as the nominator points out, there are two separate articles for Boulder Bridge and Ross Drive Bridge, and it's not clear where a redirect should point. (I had split the articles in 2015 since the two bridges are unrelated other than both being built in Rock Creek Park in the same decade; they carry different roads over different creeks.) It may be better to treat it as a disambiguation page. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Would redirecting to National Register of Historic Places listings in Washington, D.C. be better? The fact that this is a listing combining two separate things is mentioned there in a note. Hog Farm _Talk 21:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's actually a pretty good idea. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 22:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a possible solution.

(1) - Keep the article named simply Boulder Bridge created by West Virginian 10-22-2007 It is technically correct in content and sourcing. And it's formatted correctly.

(2) - The article named Boulder Bridge and Ross Drive Bridge was created by Antony-22 10-22-2015. It is named correctly, but only contains one sentence and no sourcing.

(3) Need tech advice on how to do this, if it can be done.

Might be a good idea to first delete Boulder Bridge and Ross Drive Bridge.

Move Boulder Bridge to the title Boulder Bridge and Ross Drive Bridge, while keeping its editing history.

Since I've never performed such a article swap before, we need help from an admin who can perform this swap. — Maile (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the two bridges are fairly unrelated and it wouldn't be appropriate to cover them in a single article. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 22:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to National Register of Historic Places listings in the upper NW Quadrant of Washington, D.C. and fix the links there. This should not be its own page, and after a brief search that is clearly the best page to redirect to. SportingFlyer T·C 20:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Register of Historic Places listings in western Washington, D.C.. Ross Drive Bridge is west of Rock Creek, while Boulder Bridge straddles it. The NHRP listing is thus in both list articles, but the western one is the more appropriate redirect target. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 22:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification for everyone on how these two came to be listed as one. Please see NRHP Nomination Form. It was listed that way by NRHP. — Maile (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shelby County Airport (Missouri)

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

I ran across this trying to source unreferenced Missouri articles for the ongoing unreferenced articles drive. While the essay WP:NAIRPORT suggests that municipal general aviation airports are likely to be notable, that essay does not carry the weight of policy and I'm not finding any substantial coverage for this at all. This from MODOT looks substantive at first, but actually only 4 sentences is about this airport and the rest is about general aviation in the state as a whole. Newspapers.com searching in Missouri for this airport turns up coverage of airports in Alabama and Memphis, but only a statement that a large crowd turned out for a BBQ pork dinner about this airport and a second brief statement announcing a fly-in at the airport in 1961. I know these municipal airports are usually notable, but I don't see a WP:GNG pass here due to the only coverage a fairly thorough WP:BEFORE is bringing up that isn't registration-type listings are the four sentences from MODOT and the two one-sentence passing mentions. The NAIRPORT essay does not carry the weight of policy. Hog Farm _Talk 05:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Transportation, and Missouri. Hog Farm _Talk 05:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:5P establishes that Wikipedia is a gazetteer, and airports are a standard part of such works. WP:V is the guiding line beyond that, and that is satisfied. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shelby County as an ATD. BTW, Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer (yes, I know it's an essay but still) and WP:GEOLAND tells us that artificial features related to infrastructure need to pass WP:GNG which this does not. So if the redirect target doesn't work for folks, then delete... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of airports in Missouri, which is a much better target than the county itself. There's just the bare minimum of information about this unattended turf runway that I could find, but I think we're just a source away from being able to restore it if someone comes across this later. SportingFlyer T·C 20:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on this, din't know it was there. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Sportingflyer and Alexandermcnabb. I agree that List of airports in Missouri currently appears to be the best target that allows us to get the most information to the reader. I suppose there's a non-zero chance this may prove to be notable, but I'm also not convinced it warrants a stand-alone page when we have a fully functioning list we can add the information to. If a future editor does end up expanding the articles on Shelbyville, Missouri or Shelby County, Missouri and finds that they have enough for more than two sentences on the airport, then I have no objection to changing the redirect target. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NorthOnTrack

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under GNG or SNG. Not only are there no GNG sources on the subject of the article, there are not even sources or article content on them. Appears to be a group lobbying for changes in Northern Powerhouse Rail and the whole article is about Northern Powerhouse Rail and changes that they want. IMO should be merged into the Northern Powerhouse Rail article. North8000 (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Motors TV

AfDs for this article:

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

I cannot find any significant coverage of this to establish notability. The article also gives off advertisement vibes. GranCavallo (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Middle East. GranCavallo (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely not notable. Ajf773 (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG with vim, verve and brio. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fail WP:N and WP:V Ugh? Completely unsourced?? Tesleemah (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likely a time-buy satellite channel that down the line realized YouTube distribution was much better; they're now known as ArabGT (YT) and have an appropriate website. This channel certainly fails GNG though and the article likely got abandoned in some kind of ownership transfer. Nate • (chatter) 00:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alberni Pacific 2

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

Does not meet GNG, existing sources are unreliable (self-published / blogs) except for CHEK, which is not significant coverage. I was unable to find any significant coverage from a basic BEFORE search. Could be redirected or selectively merged to Alberni Pacific Railway. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Canada. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Along with the CHEK article, one can find many photos of this train on various train enthusiast websites along with short mentions in a couple news articles and in books. These can't really be considered significant coverage but do speak to the fact that the train is not entirely unknown. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 04:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Alberni Pacific Railway#Rolling stock. It does not appear to have stand-alone notability, but is clearly notable within the context of rolling stock on that railway and the target article is not so large that a merge would be inappropriate on size grounds. Thryduulf (talk) 08:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buchanan, Indiana

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

Here we have a case where it was the GNIS compilers were a bit too trusting, for the source is not the topos, but is instead an 1876 map with (presumably) a dot on it. No topo shows anything here until it gets back-added from GNIS, and the cited source fails verification: the page in question is about the founding of the city of Louisville and doesn't mention this place. I searched the rest of the book but all mentions were of people except one for a street where a church was located. Mangoe (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Indiana. – The Grid (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonexistent place, no information found, and as nom pointed out the second source never mentions the place at all. That leaves GNIS, which does not confer notability. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Dennis

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

This article came up at ANI, due to an IP address making inappropriate edits, and on closer inspection I don't think that the subject is notable. The article asserts that he has lectured at a couple of academic institutions, but he doesn't appear to be currently employed at either of them, and that wouldn't constitute an WP:NPROF pass anyway. His dismissal from a railway engineering firm was covered in the national press, but WP:BLP1E. He has written a book, but the reviews I'm finding for that are written on activist websites, railway fan forums and the like - it's not an WP:NAUTHOR pass. That leaves us with the idea that he is notable because he is interviewed in the press from time to time about matters concerning railway transportation; I'm not persuaded that that constitutes notability for our purposes. He may become notable in the future, if his writing attracts significant critical attention, but to my mind this article is premature. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Politics, Engineering, Scotland, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Week redirect to Peter Hendy#Network Rail, where his sacking is covered. Despite enjoying his work, I have to agree that at present Dennis doesn't quite have enough coverage (per WP:BLP1E) to merit a standalone article (although I personally don't think he's too far off). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 13:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't seem to pass author notability for "How Railways will fix the Future", this is the only sort of "critical review" I could find [1] and I'm not sure if that even counts as a RS. Getting fired isn't terribly notable. I don't see him passing academic notability either. I'm not sure what's left for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just to be clear, I think trains are great, and the subject's advocacy and passion are probably for the good. But being interviewed a lot, getting sacked for maybe not choosing his words carefully enough, and writing one book with apparently one review (in something called Counterfire, "a revolutionary socialist organisation committed to transforming our society from one based on the profit motive to one built on the needs of working people" [2]), aren't even close to notability material. It's worth pointing out that the subject himself has edited the article recently, so we can assume that any worthwhile sources are already present in the article. E Eng 16:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be fair, as far as I can tell, Dennis only made two edits in August, which amounted to a change of the nationality of his father, which in the timeline of this article doesn't seem very recent. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 16:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't implying there was anything wrong with his edits. My point was simply that you can count on the subject to have added to the article any missing significant sources about himself, if any existed. (Or he might have raised them on the talk page.) E Eng 16:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can assume that. If there was an article on me, I probably wouldn't edit it or its talk page point blank as far as possible. If there was something bad enough that I felt I did need to do something I would likely stick to the talk page etc but whatever I did, would still only edit in relation to these important issues. And no matter how much else I felt was missing I likely wouldn't do anything about it, not even posting sources on the talk page. I'm not sure if I'd worry too much about the nationality of my father myself, but it can be a big deal for some. Nil Einne (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject doesn't strike me as the type to hide his light under a bushel. E Eng 04:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth noting the book is only being published this month so it could be a case of WP:TOOSOON as far as reviews go. For this reason, if it can't be kept, I would support a redirect for now per @Cakelot1:'s suggestion. Starklinson (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and suggestion: stories about him are front page news in UK national newspapers today, please can we wait a while to make a decision, there are many new refs to add and very likely more in the next days. John Cummings (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I very much doubt if any newspaper, anywhere in the world has front-page, today, that isn't entirely One Story. In terms of update, itself, it doesn't seem to change the WP:BLP1E calculation (it being an update to the "Hendy event"). Is your impression that we are likely to get any stories about Gareth, that don't concern his firing/Hendy? Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 13:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cakelot1 This was the leading story of front page of the Guardian yesterday morning, at least when you accessed it from the UK. I've added some of the info into the article with this ref. John Cummings (talk) 09:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is off topic, but I guess when somebody says a front page news, I still think there talking about the print editions (which were pretty uniform in being about the elections). Certainly when I went to the Grauniad website yesterday the first screen I got (from the UK) was all US election stories/widgets and had to scroll to see anything else, but I guess that would also depend on size, etc. All of which is besides the point about the 1E-ness of the article. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 09:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind when newspapers were being prepared for Wednesday morning in the UK, it's fairly likely all that there was to say about the US election, was something like "Americans vote in monumental election" so it's not particularly surprising they had a lot of room for other stuff on their front pages. I'm sure their Thursday papers and any evening or other late editions might be different. Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point remains though that this is still BLP1E - it looks like he ended up getting sacked because a government minister complained to his boss about something he said in an interview; that (now former) government minister has apologised, and that apology is resulting in news coverage. We can (and do) cover those controversial events in the article about the politician (although it looks like that might need a bit of updating in light of today's coverage), but it doesn't follow that we need an article about the individual who lost his job. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit do you think there are enough refs to recreate an article on the situation? John Cummings (talk) 09:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean an article on the scandal / controversy? I don't have a view on whether or not it would be possible, but I doubt it worthwhile - as scandals involving government ministers go, it's pretty low level. Mentioning it at the page about him is probably worthwhile, but I wouldn't go further than that personally, and I've written some low-traffic articles in my time! Girth Summit _(blether) 09:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Peter Hendy#Network Rail: Per above... About me; Talk to me. Farewell fellow editor... 13:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request If the article is approved for deletion please 'draftify' it instead, I want to work on it. John Cummings (talk) 09:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing stopping you making a user space copy of it yourself right now, provided you follow the guidelines at WP:CWW. If this closes as redirect, as seems likely at this point, you would then be able to work on it in your user space, and copy back across to the article title when the subject clearly passes notability criteria. I'd appreciate a courtesy ping if you do that, but I can't require that of you. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit I'm requesting this because I want to catch the most developed version of this article if it dissappears, given that its currently covered in the news it seems likely it will change in the next days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Cummings (talk • contribs) 09:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whoever closes the discussion can make that call; I guess it could be draftified/userfied and then a redirect put in its current title place if that's the decision. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Cummings, when the time comes, make a request at WP:REFUND for the text to be emailed . E Eng 18:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that waiting for a deletion decision is best. A copy/paste drafting would lack the version history, which might hold information that's useful in the future. A page move isn't appropriate during the AfD discussion. But that's essentially the best outcome for @John Cummings. I just !voted delete, but this is a sincere comment. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 00:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom and Oaktree b. This subject fails all available notability thresholds. It might be WP:TOOSOON; you never know. JFHJr (㊟) 23:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
& userfy/draft for @John Cummings. JFHJr (㊟) 00:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Peter Hendy#Network Rail, as the sacking seems to be the main source of notability now. If delete & redirect is the outcome then I'd be happy with userifying the latest version for John Cummings to keep on working on it; if the book becomes notable by reviews, then the content of this article might be useful background, but with only a single authored book, WP:AUTHOR isn't going to be met for Dennis himself, even if multiple mainstream reviews are later published. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Draftify It's all the same one story. The issue is Hendy's behaviour really. Secretlondon (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable promotional article for the subject. Clearly written to support his upcoming book, and the "controversy" around his firing is not enough to even satisfy WP:BLP1E. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the merits of this article, it very clearly wasn't written to support his upcomming book. The first versions of the article don't mention the book and came months before the incident with Hendy happened. Thryduulf (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wileńska street (Bydgoszcz)

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

No reason this street is notable, only coverage is routine sources. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Road signs in Albania

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

Unreferenced. Wikipedia is not a gallery. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Albania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the reasons given. The page exists as a draft. It does not seem to have been submitted to review prior to being published in the mainspace again.

As a sidenote, Albanian road signs are practically identical to Italian signs, save for the use of the Albanian language instead of Italian (as well as other trivial differences). Unless there is more information given about this, an article for it should not exist in my opinion, and it should remain as a draft until then. EthanL13 | talk 13:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is certainly notable [3], though the article itself needs a lot of work, including textual info and reliable sources. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Typically, an assertion of "The topic is certainly notable" would include links to sources discussing the topic, not just saying that similar articles exist covering other countries. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite easy to find RS for this article, just like for the other articles listed in the cat page. If anyone wants to work on and save this article, I can provide the RS. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at other articles in the Road signs by country cat, and this article does not need a lot of work to be in line with the standards followed by the rest of that cat's. So I will improve it in the coming hours to save it from deletion. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now the article has 3 RS, and its format and content are in line with the other articles of road signs. Using the second RS, or others that can be found online, one can write a section with more info on the legislation, the relevant insitutions etc. Some media articles elaborate on the issues with their usage in practice and so on. I myself don't have the time for now. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no longer unreferenced, and part of an established set of articles. You do not need to publish drafts for review. SportingFlyer T·C 20:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, there is no consensus so we could use a further review of newly added sources to see whether or not they are sufficient to Keep this article. Yes, the article is kind of a gallery but I don't think that reason warrants deletion all on its own.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as improved as per Ktrimi991 and SportingFlyer, and as a member of Category:Road signs by country. This is the sort of content that makes Wikipedia uniquely valuable to readers. BD2412 T 15:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adani Enterprises

AfDs for this article:

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

The article is essentially a fork of Adani Group and provides no new information. The past AfD had only two votes and one of them was a sock and another an UPE who have been blocked, refer to this for more information. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with Ratnahastin. A lot of WP: CONTENTFORKING is there in article. It is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK actually.Adamantine123 (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, News media, Television, Technology, Aviation, Internet, and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any evidence of redundant content fork here. Adani Enterprises is the largest company within the much broader Adani Group. In its own right, Adani Enterprises meets WP:LISTED as it is part of the NIFTY 50 index of the 50 largest Indian companies and has received significant coverage in international media [4], Indian media [5], and analyst reports [6] independent of the parent. This page appears to have passed the WP:AFC review legitimately in 2021. Concerns about paid edits should be addressed by cleaning up the problematic content, instead of deleting pages on otherwise highly notable topics. Yuvaank (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adani Group: as an WP:ATD. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed with Yuvaank, Clrealy meets WP:NCORP, WP:LISTED, WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS. Also already survived from previous AfD. Vofavy (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources fail WP:NEWSORGINDIA and they don't say why do we need an "Adani Enterprises" when we have Adani Group. Dympies (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure content fork especially when we already have an article on Adani Group. Dympies (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seriously, i can't believe how can someone mark such notable companies for deletion. I mean on what ground? Adani is one of the most notable companies in India, easily passes WP:NCORP. See the notices and warnings on nominator's talk page which has been deleted by the user. B-Factor (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ASPERSIONS. Dympies (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A better and deeper source evaluation is needed on the presented ones. Kindly note that keep !votes should provide proper rationale supported by reliable sources denoting notability and SIGCOV. Additionally, kindly address the need of the article when another similarly titled article already exists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to address Dympies's comment above which seems to suggest we discount the sources presented by me on the basis of WP:NEWSORGINDIA: The Financial Times is not even an Indian news organization to begin with and is widely-regarded as one of the highest-quality sources for business-related topics. The Ken is pretty credible too as there is no evidence of paid reporting by them. The HDFC Securities analyst report satisfies WP:LISTED. These sources, along with it being part of NIFTY 50, establish this company's notability independent of the parent group umbrella. It is worth considering WP:SIZE of the Adani Group page before advocating for a merge/redirect. I'm also yet to see any evidence of content fork besides sweeping assertions. Yuvaank (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is a reasonable solution to deleting a bad article that is a fork of a company - but is also a real subsidiary. We don’t need articles about every subsidiary of even the largest companies. Bearian (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - One more article on the same topic is unnecessary. Agletarang (talk) 12:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Synchronized down shift rev-matching system

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

No refs on the page for many years. Appears to be a highly promotional page about a Nissan proprietary product with no indications that I can find of wider notability and importance JMWt (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The term exists [7], but beyond sites using the phrase, there isn't anything at length about this. Not meeting notability requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The French Wikipedia article has nine references. Left guide (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Heel-and-toe shifting: which is the manual equivalent this system is designed to replace. In that target, a section about the Nissan system would be a perfect fit. Owen× ☎ 12:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we reach consensus between deleting and merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above, the obvious place for a brief mention. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sokudo Electric

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

Promotional article from an SMM company using press releases, interviews, product and facility launches, and other announcements. ~~No coverage in reliable sources.~~ No coverage in independent reliable sources, fails GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Products, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi, these coverages are all reliable, they are posted on reliable media sources like news medias, print magazines. please feel free to check all the links before making a decision. Pitchonepr SMM (talk) 07:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

at the very least Delete the sections of the article that are just listing products, but the article as a whole reads somewhat promotional. Gaismagorm (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Leaning keep. I cannot evaluate the reliability of most of the sources used in the article but some of them sources that look alright, like Rest of World and News18. The topic of the article seems notable. Jeraxmoira, are you saying that all of the sources are unreliable? Can you explain why you think so? Needless to say all the promotional fluff that is not supported by sources or is supported only by the company's press releases should be removed. Alaexis_¿question? 22:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the proper process for dealing with the WP:COI has not been followed by Pitchonepr SMM, I urge them to disclose their conflict of interest immediately (full disclosure, I came here because asked me a question at my talk page). Alaexis_¿question? 22:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alaexis, the Rest of World article is an interview and the News18 article is a press release. They do not pass the WP:SIRS check that is conducted for articles about organizations and companies. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeraxmoira, yeah, you're right about these two sources. And what about this piece? It seems to address the subject directly and in depth. Alaexis_¿question? 22:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very good source with a byline and it also seems to be a magazine feature. But, I wouldn’t be okay with it, as it’s an interview that would fail the WP:SIRS check. i.e., it is not completely independent of the article subject. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my !vote to Leaning Keep. I understand your points but still think that this topic is notable. Alaexis_¿question? 08:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your rationale seems like WP:PPOV to me, as the author of the article reached out to you earlier through the mentorship module. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources are mainly WP:CHURNALISM, WP:NEWSORGINDIA, routine announcements, or press releases. I originally saw the News18 reference as meeting WP:ORGCRIT, but based on the search link provided by Jeraxmoira, I see that it is also churnalism (similar to how TechCrunch does a lot of stories). --CNMall41 (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just reminding participants that a promotional tone and unencyclopedic sections can be edited out, and are not a valid reason for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poor sources that are interviews, primary, announcements and product launch news. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive.com.au

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

Suggesting a redirect to Fairfax Media �� 2014 to 2018, with potentially some content merged to that section. I cannot find anything else useful, and keeping in mind that The Sydney Morning Herald is not independent of Fairfax, I find it unlikely this would benefit from a standalone page. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, Websites, and Australia. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I almost AfD'ed this myself (see page history) but given the number of our articles using this site (validly) as a source, I considered instead that it made the grade for keeping. Being a stub is not in itself a deletion reason, even if it's not expanded immediately. Especially as this article is only a couple of weeks old and it does have adequate sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking for a delete though, and I never mentioned being a stub, so you're putting words in my mouth with that one. I did read what you and 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco were doing in the history, I don't believe this is suited for a standalone page, and being cited by Wikipedia is not a valid reason to keep an article. Being quoted in the media is in no way adequate sourcing. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need at least 2 in depth sources to meet WP:GNG and I am not seeing this at all. 2603:8001:7106:C515:7811:9D52:2B0E:FC2C (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fairfax Media. The parent company is notable and this is mentioned there. Notability is not inherited, and there is no indication of independent notability here. Various hits are just links to the website, passing mentions, or their own news articles (primary). So there is not sufficient sourcing to support a claim of independent notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fairfax Media. Article is too sparse.Teraplane (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lada Niva Vision

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

A car that was never built. Does not seem capable of sustaining an article. Sourcing is just a bunch of "this car is coming" news articles which are substantially similar (and show up any time any car is announced), and then the cancellation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Russia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It's certainly noteworthy, mostly for not being built. This could well be merged to the Renault–Nissan Common Module Family#CMF-B LS section, but it shouldn't just be deleted. Any decision on this article would apply pretty much equally to the Lada Iskra too. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:FUTURE, and certainly no indications of notability. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954: Please don't delete other people's comments on AfDs, even when they disagree with you. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley I did not delete your comment intentionally, I think there was an editing conflict -- if you look at the times we were editing at the same time. My apologies, I would never do that intentionally. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Six months is enough time for more sources to appears. Svartner (talk) 06:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stations

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

Transportation-related Redirects for Discussion

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