Cannabis Sativa

thcscience_admin
Shortcut

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

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


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

Additional debates categorized as dealing with Transportation related issues may also be listed at Category:AfD debates (Places and transportation).


Transportation[edit]

TransPennine Express (disambiguation)[edit]

TransPennine Express (disambiguation) (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)

Since there are only two other topics that could be known as the 'Transpennine Express', I think that this dab page is not needed/useful. A hatnote at the main TPE article linking to the two could suffice JuniperChill (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. JuniperChill, I think you hint at WP:2DABS yet I see 3 items at the disambiguation page. Can you clarify? gidonb (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb I said 'two OTHER topics' per WP:TWOOTHER. I think you are confused that on the main TransPennine Express page, it will have links to the two pages TransPennine Express (2016–2023) and First TransPennine Express via a hatnote. Basically, TPE has a primary topic with two other topics is another way to put it. JuniperChill (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mackay road network[edit]

Mackay road network (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)

Doesn't meet WP:NROAD because there isn't any independent significant coverage. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 14:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mostly sourced to GMaps (!) and not notable per GNG. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Class 755[edit]

Class 755 (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)

After 2 reverts, I have decided to start a discussion on whether class 755 should redirect to British Rail Class 755. The reason is because of the fact most of them searching this term is likely looking for the one in the UK. the pageviews also give a picture, having received over 10x the number of views. The only other topic is Prussian G 8 which is not titled that way so that is why I agree and propose to replace this with a redirect and add a hatnote to the other. This is an example of WP:BLAR - blank and redirect, but others have opposed my change. JuniperChill (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. JuniperChill (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the established convention has been that where there is one class of rolling stock, that Class xxx be set as a disambiguation page. While people will naturally think that the class in the their home country is the primary topic, Wikipedia has a global readership who may have differing opinions based on their geographic locations. Weshmakui (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this normally applies, but have you heard of 'primary topic' and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT? There are3 only two articles where 'class 755' could be referred to and that I have provided the linked pageviews above. British Rail Class 755 has over 10x the number of views that the Prussian G 8 has. Many titles and abbreviations do not have a primary topic (where the disambiguation page has '(disambiguation)' in it) but this seems like an exception. And yes while Wikipedia does have people around the globe, articles can often have most of its views from one country/region. This is the case here since almost everyone that knows this type of train is from the UK. JuniperChill (talk) 09:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To add: Actually WikiNav is also useful because it shows that all of the pageviews goes to BR Class 755 JuniperChill (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. On the input side regardless of primary topic, WP:2DAB applies. On the output side, making primary topic available again. gidonb (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I proposed a redirect to British Rail Class 755 per WP:BLAR, not to delete the page. JuniperChill (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LNER Class Y11[edit]

LNER Class Y11 (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 tagged as unsourced, and indeed is unsourced, since 2015. Propose merging into another suitable article, as this doesn't appear to meet notability requirements - a search doesn't yield any reliable sources. Danners430 (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Danners430 (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources don't need to be online (and did you check the LNER Encyclopedia link?). I'm not at home right now, but I'm certain that there is information in several books, such as Boddy, M. G.; Fry, E. V.; Hennigan, W.; Hoole, Ken; Yeadon, W. B. (November 1988). Fry, E. V. (ed.). Locomotives of the L.N.E.R., part 10A: Departmental Stock, Locomotive Sheds, Boiler and Tender Numbering. Lincoln: RCTS. ISBN 0-901115-65-7.. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If those are sources, then perfect - makes perfect sense to have them! Unfortunately I don’t have access to them, nor did I know of their existence… and they weren’t in the article anywhere hence the AfD. Would make sense to add them as sources and close this! Danners430 (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge With an existing article, Motor Rail, this article is not notable enough, furthermore, it doesn't have any sources. EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of sources. Obscure and small in number doesn't mean non-notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tardza Project[edit]

Tardza Project (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)

The three pages Tardza Project, Criollo_Project and CarBone (company) are not written appropriately for Wikipedia, and have very marginal notability at best. I tagged them on NPP, but the editors have made no attempt to improve them. I am therefore doing a AfD, this one is the worst and I see no reason it can meet WP:N Ldm1954 (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

561 (Transperth Bus Route)[edit]

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

No WP:SIGCOV at all. Steelkamp (talk) 04:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

does have significant coverage. It's a bus route, and the article describes said route as well as start and end points. Also has reference which links to the bus timetable and map. Wikipedia's SIGCOV guideline states that an article must "address the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." The article addresses the topic directly, by talking about the bus route itself. It details the journey the route takes from start to finish. And it also provides a reference to the timetable/map of the route, meaning there is no need for additional research. For these reasons this article should remain open. There is nothing wrong with adding bus route articles to wikipedia as they are an important part of everyday transport, and this route in particular connects two important stations in the southern suburbs as well as the local school in Secret Harbour. Rick Astlios (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it is also a new article and more content (images/paragraphs) will be added in future if the article remains up Rick Astlios (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need more substantial sources than just a timetable and map, of which at least some should be independent sources. As far as I'm aware, no such sources exist. Steelkamp (talk) 05:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG as its only reference is to a timetable which is a primary source. I couldn't find any other secondary reliable sources such as independent news articles from a Google search. Fork99 (talk) 05:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Also, if for some reason this was decided to be kept, the title should be something like Perth bus route 561 in line with similar articles like Sydney bus route 333 and London Buses route 1. Fork99 (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is difficult to see how any bus route could be notable, but this one certainly is not. Bduke (talk) 05:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Bus routes can be notable, but this one does not have significant coverage from secondary sources and thus fails GNG. SounderBruce 05:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - some Perth bus routes are in their historic context 'notable' at a stretch - the problem with a route like 561 there is buckley's chance of actually adequately providing WP:RS that actually are in places that might have something. Google is a waste of time. Trove might have had something, but the route is something that is less than 25 years old, and as a result, nothing short of the archives of the ticket and timetable newsletter might have something - but then they do look at the older era. A possible sideway glimpse in a real live archive - https://slwa.wa.gov.au/pdf/ephemera/pr11903tragen.pdf which any of the Perth based editors could access if they had the interest to physically check - might have something, but the Secret Harbour locality (which has little of help in the article to identify when it was actually specifically developed as a locality) is 1984 + in age, which means that the chance of an easily accessible community news service for the area is also zilch, as it would require whichever newspaper to have locality specific news, which might have had comment about public transport... The Sound Telegraph appears to have no interest in bus routes. To assert notability of a bus route like this, is I am afraid to say, pointless. JarrahTree 15:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Technically could be redirected to list of bus routes in Perth, Western Australia#500–599 but the article really new and also dabbed so delete is reasonable. gidonb (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heartland Museum of Military Vehicles[edit]

Heartland Museum of Military Vehicles (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:NORG; written like an advertisement. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Military, Transportation, and Nebraska. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this does somehow survive deletion I am able to get some photos for the article. I haven't looked much into the Museum itself so I can't currently comment on it's notability. ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 04:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is not written like an advertisement, instead it needs improvement, not deletion. I'm appalled to see this nomiated for deletion. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I spent a little bit of time tonight cleaning up, updating references, adding a new reference to a 2016 article in Recoil (magazine). We need some help from a wordsmith to expand the text. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, I've found some sourcing. Cleanup is possible, not a reason to delete. This is nowhere near TNT level. Star Mississippi 14:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This page need to be rewritten to not be like an advertisement, but there are some articles online about the museum that make it notable. That Tired TarantulaBurrow 17:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Apart from being written like an advertisement (WP:NORG), this entry fails WP:GNG. Its only sources are its own website. AstridMitch (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2024

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Could be notable, but sourcing is primary in the article. I can only find various travel blogs or listings for them [1], without much coverage at all. Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021 English Channel disaster[edit]

November 2021 English Channel disaster (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)

The article concerns a single incident of the ongoing English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present) and does not need to have its own article. Firsttwintop (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (at least for now) - I could be wrong but it being the most deadly of these reported incidents makes it notable right? Maybe in the future if (heaven forbid) something else happens that may not ring true but right now it is. 2406:5A00:CC0A:9200:F885:F46D:3F46:5787 (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main article notes the incident properly: "On 24 November, the deadliest incident on record occurred. An inflatable dinghy carrying 30 migrants capsized while attempting to reach the UK, resulting in 27 deaths and one person missing. The victims included a pregnant woman and three children.". It would therefore fortify the request for it to be deleted simply because it lacks notability and it is not news. It is not appropriate in the context of the main article to create a standalone article for this one incident. Firsttwintop (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus. As an aside, it's interesting that this nomination (originally a PROD) was one of this editor's first edits. How did you even know about AFDs?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning keep. This appears to be a well-referenced and not-insignificant disaster. BD2412 T 00:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The references are more than adequate to justify keeping this disaster and its consequences as a separate article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present). The article is one separate event of a series of migrant crossings that have been going on for years. It may be overtaken in the future by a higher number of deaths. There is no reason for individual events of this series of migrant crossings to have their own page when they can be properly accommodated in English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present). Mariawest1965 (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This incident is notable not just from the large loss of life, but also because the level of public interest in that led both to the revelations about how the boat traffic was being treated by "rescue" services, and to some political/policy changes. That meets WP:EVENT and needs the more detailed record that this generally-well-referenced article provides, rather than shoe-horning just a brief summary into the main article. - Davidships (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present): the event is just another event of the migrant crossings, not justifying the separation of the single event from the main article, and could possibly be displaced as being the most deaths in migrant crossings in the future. MonsterRacer1 (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    MonsterRacer1, how did you find this AFD on your first edit? Liz Read! Talk! 02:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was reading the article and saw that it had been nominated for deletion; then I read the main article and found the information on the main article too, so I thought I would join in the discussion. MonsterRacer1 (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, no one has supported the nomination with a specific delete !vote, but the !votes are divided between keep and merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see the point of this AfD nomination. This clearly fulfills WP:NEVENT given the sheer amount of coverage it has received. The article is well written and sourced, so no major cleanup needed either. This article counts 1300+ words, and the proposed merger would include most of its content into a page that has less than double the amount of words, giving WP:UNDUE weight to this single event. Keep is in my opinion the only possible option. Broc (talk) 08:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simpasture railway station[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Of the seven sources, two are trivial mentions, four don't mention the station at all, and one (Priestley) has brief mentions of a station of similar name but many decades earlier. A BEFORE search does not find anything more substantial. My bold redirect to Clarence Railway was removed by the article's creator. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a difference of opinion on the quality of the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like No consensus. When presenting your argument, please cite current, relevant policy and guidelines and focus on the article and its sources, not other contributors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail Eastern Region departmental locomotives[edit]

British Rail Eastern Region departmental locomotives (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)

Wholly unsourced article since 2009 Danners430 (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Danners430, were you aware that there isn't actually a requirement in any policy or guideline to cite sources? Our rule is that a subject can qualify for a separate article if sources exist in the real world, even if none are cited in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am aware. However, if you continue reading through that guideline, you’ll find more info - specifically regarding whether editors can find sources elsewhere. I’ve done a search through sources that I know of, and through search engines, and can’t find any sources whatsoever. As per that guideline, that seriously casts into question the notability of the article. Danners430 (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is contextless data with no indication of importance or discussion as a group in secondary sources; as such, it fails WP:NLIST. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I found a book source which I think is enough to establish the topic's notability. Smith, Paul; Smith, Shirley (2014). British Rail departmental locomotives 1948-1968 : includes depots and stabling points. Hersham: Ian Allan Publishing. p. 96. ISBN 978-0-7110-3800-4. OCLC 897871236. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NLIST. These statistics are not given any context or meaning. Eastmain above fails to distinguish between departmental locomotives as a whole (we already have British Rail departmental locomotives) and eastern region departmental locomotives. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – there is a whole chapter devoted to this subject in volume 10A of Locomotives of the LNER. I have added this source as a reference to the article, along with one for each main section. I don't mind expanding it to one citation for each loco, but it a fair amount of work, and it would be a waste of my time is the article is deleted...
The source also states the location the locos were used at.
This is also part of a series of three articles – the second covers the Southern Region and the third every other region. — Iain Bell (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need a series? These are just lists, and British Rail departmental locomotives could easily hold the entire contents of this article if people think it's worth including in the encyclopedia. Splitting them up seems arbitrary and not particularly helpful. We don't need three articles where one would do. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge - First and foremost, I concur with Eastmain that sources exist to demonstrate notability, and two of these sources have been integrated into the article as of time of nomination. By definition, GNG is satisfied. Being said, looking at WP:NVEHICLE, this subject falls somewhere between the "type" and "subtype" categories in my view, and leans towards the "subtype" classification, falling under the "type" of British Rail departmental locomotives. Beyond functioning as a quasi-"list of" article, prose in this article focus predominantly on the history and numbering structure, which would substantively improve British Rail departmental locomotives. Ergo, I !vote that the article be merged and redirected to a subsection of that article. Ultimately, I will also cite ease of navigation as a factor to consider here. The linking between these articles, especially without the 'British railway locomotives and miscellany, 1948 to present' navbox on some mobile platforms, makes information unnecessarily segmented across articles. Condensing and combining content here seems the best course of action. Bgv. (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are the two sources enough to establish notability? Are there more sources we are missing?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect: Although this information is sourced now, I don't think there is much point treating the Eastern region in a separate article (same for SR departmental locomotives, as far as I'm concerned.) — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 16:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail DHP1[edit]

British Rail DHP1 (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)

Wholly unsourced article since 2009 Danners430 (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: without sources. Nothing came up on Google. RolandSimon (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Danners430 (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There just isn't anything written about this that I can find [2], a photo there, and [3], a magazine that won't open for me... I'd maybe merge this into the list of British locomotives, but it's unsourced regardless. I mean, the information came from somewhere, but we don't have a source identified... Oaktree b (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find any evidence of SIGCOV, and no suitable redirect target seems to exist. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unfortunately, unless offline sourcing exists (which wouldn't surprise me). I found a couple of sources that were neither in-depth nor reliable which suggest that British Rail Class 17 (on which it was based) would make an appropriate merge target if we can verify the information. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or merge British Rail Class 17 or Clayton Equipment Company are the obvious places to look for a mention, but there isn't any there (the latter has a see also, the first has nothing). It's mentioned in the table at List of British Rail modern traction locomotive classes#Builders' demonstrators so that might also be a suitable merge target. Some more googling has found some things that prove existence and verify some of what is in the article:
      • [4] a primary sources, but it verifies it was a "Prototype 1500HP BoBo Diesel Hydraulic", the drawing contains a copyright date which might be useful but I can't read it.
      • [5] indicates that there is a lot more information available from the manufacturer, but being primary that would all speak to verifiability not notability.
      • [6] This copy of a Railways Illustrated article (see PDF page 3) has a small amount of information, and presumably counts as a secondary source.
      • [7] A review of this book indicates that it includes information about the DHP1, but as I don't have a copy I can't say too much.
      • [8] This forum post has some quotes from an article in Classic Diesels and Electrics magazine issue 3 (December 1997/January 1998) described elsewhere as "Major", it also notes that there was at least a drawing in Modern Locomotives Illustrated No 174. I've not been able to find either magazine online. However, combined with the number of models of it that exist, I'm satisified that notability is demonstrated. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      After thinking about this a bit more, I now think that Clayton Equipment Company would be the best place to merge this to as most of the sources frame it in the context the manufacturer, the relationship to Class 17 is limited and not only does the list article not really having anywhere great to put a section of prose it feels a bit undue to have that much detail about an individual entry. As for whether to merge or keep as a stand-alone article, I might be leaning towards the former but I'd not describe either as a clear preference at this point. Thryduulf (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is basically unverifiable. Even if it were conclusively proven to exist it would only merit a brief mention within the Class 17 article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there is any serious doubt that this existed and was based on the Class 17. I haven't found a reliable source that states this but the variety and nature of the unreliable ones I've found leaves me in no doubt. However we do need reliable sources, and while I would be surprised if such didn't exist they haven't been found yet. Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If this conclusively exists, a redirect wouldn't hurt, but the question is where do you redirect it to? I don't think this is mentioned in any other article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See also my newer comment above, but there is a mention at List of British Rail modern traction locomotive classes#Builders' demonstrators. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This looks like a clear delete but additional sources were brought to the discussion yesterday and it would be nice to have them assessed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Not a single source provided to support the locomotive's existence. ADifferentMan (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a picture of it above in my link, but that's not helping notability. It exists. Oaktree b (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ADifferentMan I provided 5 sources above that prove it exists. It's less clear whether it is notable enough for a stand-alone article, but it's not a slam-dunk no (or yes) and existence is not in doubt. Thryduulf (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Assessment of the additional sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I won't mark this as a vote, because I opened this discussion... going by the lack of engagement alone, I would be inclined to suggest this be closed as a Delete or Merge (as proposed by Thryduulf). We can't keep relisting the AFD forever... Danners430 (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf's digging. It also has some coverage in Modern Railways of its time.
I wouldn't merge to the class 17 article because, despite the maker and cab similarities, they're very different locos. The engines are different (and there are twice as many) and the bogies are too, as the hydraulic has mechanical final drives rather than traction motors. Mostly the DHP1 would probably have avoided the 17's best known feature, its awful unreliability. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]



Stations[edit]

Hibiscus Coast busway station[edit]

Hibiscus Coast busway 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)

Fails GNG, no SIGCOV exists for these bus stations on their own. Just press releases and routine news reports of events occurring there. I propose merging to Northern Busway, Auckland I am also nominating the following related pages

Albany busway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Constellation busway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sunnynook busway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Smales Farm busway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Akoranga busway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Traumnovelle (talk) 01:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose I don't think it was a good idea to bundle this nomination. At the very least, Constellation Station is notable; there's enough coverage to bring it over the GNG line. I therefore have to oppose this in its entirety. Schwede66 07:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can provide sigcov I'll withdraw Constellation. I couldn't find anything with a search. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flindt Landing station[edit]

Flindt Landing 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)

Non notable whistle stop on the Canadian National transcontinental line. Not even a stain station, this is just a spot along the tracks where the train will stop and let you off. –dlthewave ☎ 21:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simpasture railway station[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Of the seven sources, two are trivial mentions, four don't mention the station at all, and one (Priestley) has brief mentions of a station of similar name but many decades earlier. A BEFORE search does not find anything more substantial. My bold redirect to Clarence Railway was removed by the article's creator. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a difference of opinion on the quality of the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like No consensus. When presenting your argument, please cite current, relevant policy and guidelines and focus on the article and its sources, not other contributors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation Proposed deletions[edit]

None at present

Transportation-related Images and media for Deletion[edit]

None at present

Transportation-related Miscellany for deletion[edit]

None at present

Transportation-related Templates for Deletion[edit]

None at present

Transportation-related Categories for Discussion[edit]

None at present

Transportation-related Deletion Review[edit]

None at present

Transportation-related Redirects for Discussion[edit]

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 28. (edit | history)

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

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Deletion_sorting%2FTransportation

Leave a Reply