Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Transportation|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Transportation. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

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

Purge page cache

watch

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

Transportation

Aptera 2 Series

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of significance. Failed production model. References are company PR, brochures, hype and passing mentions. No secondary coverage. scope_creep^Talk 06:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. Sources 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 11 are all independent WP:SECONDARY WP:RS with editorial staff; some of them covering the demise of the project. These include independent green technology magazines, mainstream media like CNET and KFMB-TV, national magazines like Popular Mechanics etc. These sources have by-lined authors and address the subject directly and in detail. The source analysis by the nominator is off.4meter4 (talk) 06:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @4meter4; can confirm sources 1, 3, 4 (EcoWorld, Green Car Reports, CNET) are reliable, secondary, and give significant coverage. @Scope creep yes it failed but it existed and was covered in the news (and is somewhat interesting) so it is notable for a Wikipedia article. "Secondary coverage" means not using the vehicle specs directly, not "Don't use articles that hype the product". Mrfoogles (talk) 06:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is curious that the first Afd was borderline, now is magically keep. I don't think so. The references and coverage weren't examined then but will be now. Reference 1 is a conversation with the founder. It is not independent. Reference 3 is a notice taken from note sent out by the founder, essentially a press-release. It is not independent either. Are you sure Ref 4 is right. It doesn't mention the Aptera 2. I'll go through the references in the next couple of days. scope_creep^Talk 07:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolute WP:CFORK that is unnecessary. This is already covered Aptera Motors#Design history. The first question I have is how reference #4 (CNET) is significant coverage about Aptera 2? Both keep votes reference it yet I do not see any mention of Aptera in that reference. Reference #1 (Eco World) is clearly marketed as "commentary & forums." How is that reliable? Reference #3 (Green Car Reports) is an industry publication and covers the liquidation of the company, only mentioning the prototype they tried to build (which is already covered in the Aptera Motors page. Reference #6 (TechZulu) is another industry publication with no listed editorial standards. This reference (#9 - Popular Mechanics) is a good reference but causes some question as well (it talks about Type 1 but then says a second model is coming out - so, is Aptera 2 the rename of Type 1 or are they separate - if they are separate then all the references above fall apart for notability). I also fail to see how News 8 (reference #11) is significant since the video doesn't even play. To show this is notable for its own page separate from Aptera Motors, coverage needs to meet WP:ORGCRIT and based on what I see it falls well short. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, looking at the Aptera Motors page, the Type1 and Aptera 2 are two different concepts so why are saying here "The Aptera 2 Series (formerly the Aptera Typ-1)" on the Aptera 2 page? As it is a different vehicle, the sources above about Type1 would be irrelevant to showing notability for Aptera 2.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and California. CNMall41 (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to previously mentioned sourcing, the Car and Driver review currently in External Links is also a RS and is specifically about the Aptera 2. Being a "failed production model" is very much not a reason for deletion - notability is not temporary and a vehicle does not need to reach production to be notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Car and Driver is good. What is the specific sourcing about Aptera 2 that was mentioned? I will take a look and change my !vote if there is but based on what I assessed above, there is none, especially since it now appears Aptera 2 is separate than Type1 mentioned in the sources above. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The editor visited the Aptera factory, it says so in the article, so that is not independent. scope_creep^Talk 10:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The editor did background research, including visiting the factory. Sounds like good research to me. How does this make it not independent? To be not independent you have to show that he used information from the factory even if it differed from information from other places. Stepho talk 11:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No dude. That makes it not independent, therefore unreliable. I've not heard such a load of tosh for about a decade. That is unreliable source. It is NOT independent. You should stay out of Afd. You don't know what your talking about. That is clear WP:CIR issue. I hope you not making that statement anywhere else on Wikipedia or any AFD. That would be a major problem. scope_creep^Talk 14:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounded a bit harsh. Sorry. scope_creep^Talk 14:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have a strange idea of independent. Ideal reporting is where you get information from as many places as possible - including the factory and his/her personal inspection of the car. Each source is then weighed for reliability (eg manufacturers rarely lie about a car's wheelbase but often lie about fuel economy, emissions and max power). The reporter then makes a value judgement based on his/her knowledge of the general subject (eg Car and Driver reporters know a lot about cars, reporters for business magazines usually know a lot about economics but little about cars). The ideal reporter is free to report on things from the factory (if the reporter agrees with it) and also free to report on anything that the factory does not agree with. Your definition of independent appears to be that no knowledge is allowed from the factory at all - which means that if the reporter even glanced at a press release then it is not independent. What are the chances that any reporter never looks at a press release? Stepho talk 00:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reporter you are referring to is a contributor to the publication, not a staff writer. Based on the advertorial wording used in the reference, do you feel this is similar to WP:FORBESCON with little or no editorial oversight?--CNMall41 (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being a freelance contributor or a staff writer doesn't make any difference. Car and Driver are well respected for unbiased reporting for the reader's benefit and not just parroting the manufacturers. They have staff editors and lawyers to protect that reputation by weeding out uncritical writers and double checking articles before they are sent to print.

Siler's article for Car and Driver is certainly enthusiastic but he also points out several negative things. Eg, unusually wide front track, restricted rear view, poor ingress for the arthritic among us, poor rear hatch access, poor capacitive-touch buttons, 8-hour charge times. This is no blanket endorsement of a factory press release. He obviously wants it to succeed but still calls attention to its short comings. Stepho talk 04:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point. I'm not sure we agree that it "doesn't make any difference" regarding them being a contributor or staff writer though. If it doesn't make a difference, we wouldn't have things like WP:FORBESCON and WP:HUFFPOCON. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The difference matters when there is no editorial oversight - in which case the contributor can say anything. When there is editorial oversight then the editor gets to remove anything/everything that is not inline with the values of the magazine. Car and Driver have editorial oversight and very good values for balanced reporting, so whether the writer is staff or a contributor no longer matters. If the writer submits an unbalanced story then the editor will simply reject it. Car magazines with a good reputation will work quite hard to protect that reputation and will not throw it away on a cheap report. Stepho talk 07:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes and Huffington Post have very good values for balanced reporting and work hard to protect their reputation as well. I do not think that is the issue. The issue is whether contributors to this publication have the same editorial oversight. A reference that reads good enough to print is one thing. A reference that was fact checked by an editorial staff is different. Again, I am not challenging the source, per se, only raising the question. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Visiting the factory would be a good indicator that a journalist found the topic noteworthy actually. However, looking closer at the writer, it appears they are not a journalist with the publication, only a contributor. This could be similar to the case of WP:FORBESCON but don't know for sure. Regardless, it is being challenged by at least one editor so it would help if someone can show that contributors have the same editorial oversight as the journalists ("staff writers") for the publication. MY QUESTION about the sourcing still remains unanswered. What "addition to previously mentioned sourcing" mentioned in the keep vote speaks specifically about Aptera 2 as again, the Type1 and Aptera 2 are two separate models and cannot see the significant coverage for Aptera 2.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Aptera Motors - Some information is already merged but there is more that needs to be moved. Not very clear but it appears that the Typ-1 is an earlier prototype than the 2 Series. Neither reached production but it is still interesting to read about the development of a car. The failure itself can often be notable or instructive - failed because it was too radical? Or not practical? Not powerful enough? Too cramped inside? Not enough funding? Or just plain old bad luck? Stepho talk 08:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It states in the review article in ext links which I looked at in the before, A tour of the spotless Aptera facilities, located in Vista, California, so that is not an independent reference either. I have no doubt the editor got a very clear understanding of what the prototype product is and how Aptera were trying to sell it, to enable him to write his article. Apologies for saying its a prototype. I shouldn't have put it in. They is obviously prototypes on here which are notable but its certainly not this. scope_creep^Talk 08:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dumper

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

A dumper is exactly the same thing as a dump truck. It's a different article about the same subject in a different variant of English. Cyber the tiger (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to dump truck. BD2412 T 02:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. The dump truck page already has a section for different types of dunp trucks, so I don't see why anything here wouldn't be better suited there. Urchincrawler (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a dumper and a dump truck are not the same thing. This is a misunderstanding. A dumper is smaller, has no cab and the skip is at the front. A dump truck is larger, has a driver's cab, and the skip is at the back. Harumphy (talk) 08:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is that enough of a difference to warrant its own article rather than a section on the dump truck article? It seems like they both perform the same functions. Also, the article literally starts by saying dumper or dumptruck. It does not seem to be treating them separately.Urchincrawler (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Dump truck describes several vehicles of different shapes with the same purpose. "Dumper" may describe a particular smaller shape, but there very obviously does not need to be a separate article. Reywas92^Talk 15:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dump truck is already a long article, and there are separate articles for other types (articulated hauler and haul truck) so no reason this should be an exception. The Dump truck article is about File:Foden tipper.jpg and similar vehicles; Dumper is vehicles such as File:Thwaites dumper in action 498 3.jpg. If you say separate articles are not necessary, you could say the same for car, compact car, crossover (automobile), SUV and others. Peter James (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BRT Kuching

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

Article does not satisfy notability, no significant coverage of the plan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N niyaz (talk • contribs) 10:34, November 28, 2024 (UTC)

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 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main article Kuching Urban Transportation System. — Maile (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about that merge target, but also don't think this proposal that apparently didn't go anywhere is notable. Transportation in Sarawak existed once, but was deleted. Tricky. CMD (talk) 12:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1976 Aeroflot Yakovlev Yak-40 crash

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: Other than databases, there exists no reliable secondary sources that provide (significant) coverage of the event, no in-depth coverage, no (sustained) continued coverage, no demonstrated lasting effects nor long-term impacts on a significant region of the world that would make this event notable enough for a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Russia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI I have a soft-spot for the Yak-40; it's a pretty little thing that deserved greater success in the wider world.

Anyways - although not especially notable in itself, is this event just one of hundreds of similar articles, and will they go through the same Afd process? Yes, I know, there is a WP: for what I have just done, but see my next point before shooting me down.

One of the reasons for lack of (significant) coverage is surely due to historical censorship in the Soviet Union; in this case their reluctance to acknowledge such aviation ~~crashes~~ accidents? Had this event occurred in the USA, with seven fatalities I am sure it would have been front-page news, and years later spawned an episode of Mayday (Canadian TV series). Was this article always doomed to fail simply because it happened not just in Russia, but in a remote backwater of such a vast country. Where is Ust-kut airport anyway, and does anybody care? But whilst you are there, look at this beauty, steaming out at low-level.

Back on track; there was one part of this accident article that I found most interesting; the aircraft was being used as a freight carrier, not at the end of its career, but in its heyday. It is not what you first think of when you look at the lede image and see those rear-airstairs deployed. The List of accidents and incidents involving the Yakovlev Yak-40 doesn't mention that it was a predominantly cargo flight, and deleting this article would deprive us of that detail. Ok, so I'm clutching at straws now, but there is a real point hidden in that comment.

So, it's a KEEP, pending a response from you (or others) that persuades me to change my mind, which I assure you is a real possibility.

(*) On a separate issue; back in the USSR (!), even though I like to ride my bicycle (I like to ride my bike), I'm fairly sure that I wouldn't be allowed to pedal my agenda incessantly. <coughs>. Ok, that's my way of apologising for interjecting into a conversation between you and third-parties; I am not sure what the correct form is in these cases, although I am rapidly reaching the stage of applying 'do not feed the troll', which seems to be one of the aims of the "project". Maybe I'm Losing My Religion, or maybe I've said too much.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it is a beautiful picture if we're being honest. But back to this discussion, none of this really tells us why this event is notable enough to be kept. It's possible that it could have been notable had it happened in the US, but it's also possible that it couldn't. Maybe if it had been covered on Mayday, it could have been notable enough for a standalone article, but cases such as the 1991 Gulf War KC-135 incident don't have an article (which was sent to AfD a few months ago). In short, a standalone article relies on the existence of secondary sources. None exist. Whether or not there were lasting effects or long-term impacts will need to be demonstrated.

A merge to List of accidents and incidents involving the Yakovlev Yak-40 to include more details is a possibility. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 06:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1970s. Article is covered there. Meltdown627 (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regalado Highway

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

Unlikely to pass WP:GEOROAD. Listed sources from DPWH and Quezon City government are primary sources. Searches of news on Google for both "Regalado Highway" and "Regalado Avenue" queries only give news about routine coverage on partial road closures, some fires that occurred in nondescript and unfamous businesses and houses along the highway, rerouting schemes, Quezon City speed limit rules that applies to all highways within the city and not just this one, and others. Other websites are for finding directions and for real estate hunters. None of the searched sites on Google support the notability of this typical national highway. Either redirect to List of roads in Metro Manila#Quezon City or Philippine highway network. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of roads in Metro Manila#Quezon City. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL urban roadway. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_roads_in_Metro_Manila#Quezon_City per above. This highway doesn't even have any significant features that would make it notable. AstrooKai (Talk) 20:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of roads in Metro Manila#Quezon City per above and WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Road Haulage Association

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

Non-notable lobbying/representative organisation. WP:NORG and WP:SIGCOV are not met. This article was created in 2005 (by a single-purpose contributor) with short and clearly promotional text. It was expanded in 2006 (again by a single-purpose contributor) with more quasi-promotional content taken verbatim from the "about" page of the org's own website. While I've removed much of this promotional/copyvio content, I cannot find sufficient independent/reliable/verifiable sources to replace it. Or to expand this sub-stub beyond what we have. Almost all of the coverage I can find is of lobbying statements BY the association. Which includes reports like this or this or this. Being coverage of statements BY the association and not ABOUT the association. And not meeting a WP:SIRS check. In terms of coverage ABOUT the association, all I can find is stuff like this in industry outlets. Or this in local papers. None of which amounts to in-depth/significant/independent coverage. I cannot, for example, find any sources (primary or otherwise) to establish how many members the association has, or (non-primary) sources to support the text about its branches, etc. If there are insufficient independent sources to establish even basic facts (or allow for expansion beyond short text we've had for nearly 20 years) how is WP:ORGDEPTH is met? Guliolopez (talk) 15:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Leaning towards Keep - I would be wary/reticent to delete this article rather than expand it. Verona Murphy was President of IRHA for a significant amount of time, and holding that position helped launch her political career. When Murphy became a TD, that expanded the media's coverage of the IRHA and the role became considered a bit more notable, similar to how a trade union might become highlighted if someone associated with them gained political office.

You've raised the concern that

Almost all of the coverage I can find is of lobbying statements BY the association

however I don't know that this is anything other than what we would expect. Secondary, reliable sources such as national newspapers would only ever cover an organisation such as this when it is making statements of that nature. The same would go for a trade union or farmer's representative body. I would lean towards those reports, by very reliable sources such as the Irish Times and RTÉ News, as examples of SIGCOV. We wouldn't expect national news sources to do a simple puff piece profile of any organisation where they simply inform us of their purpose and membership number. I think reliable sources covering small trade unions, for example, would not anyways dwell on their membership numbers, but nonetheless those unions would hold some significant.

Another concern raised is that the article was likely promotional in origin, and has not been edited regularly. While both of these are unfortunate, the article starting as promotion but then being fixed is not anymore automatically disqualifying than if Coca Cola's article had first been created by someone doing promotional style writing. While's is bad practice, ultimately Coca Cola would be notable and kept as an article regards of how the article originally started. As far as the lack of regular editing goes; one can reasonably argue and point out that this is typical of less prominent Irish articles. With Ireland's small population, and small body of regular Wiki editors, it is not always the case that lack of editing reflects lack of notability.

I just want to note at this point I'm playing Devil Advocate here rather than having any significant personal interest in the article. I would be interested in seeing the perspectives of other editors on this matter. CeltBrowne (talk) 09:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With thanks for your input (and likely coming as no surprise) I can't personally agree. That Verona Murphy was previously president of the organisation, to my mind, falls under WP:NOTINHERITED (that the organisation had a notable president doesn't make the organisation notable). That newspapers only really cover statements by the organisation (rather than the organisation itself) is exactly the type of concern covered in WP:SIRS and WP:ORGDEPTH (that the article cannot be expanded, because there are no independent/reliable sources to do so, is a core tenet of the guideline). Also, and with apologies if it wasn't clear in my nomination, that the original article was promotional (or that it was created by a possibly COI/SPA contributor) wasn't offered as part of my deletion rationale. Just as background. (I have personally "rescued" more than a few promotional (but otherwise notable) org articles as part of WP:BEFORE and AfD efforts. I do not see how that can be done here however. As there is nothing to rely upon to "rescue" this permastub. If you're aware of reliable/independent sources that can help expand it, then please do add them.) Guliolopez (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - well, a weak delete. There's lots of stuff out there on this industry group in a WP:BEFORE search. I didn't see anything which was a crystal clear WP:NORG pass, and it's likely our strictest guideline, so I can't vote for a keep. However, if someone wants to improve this - currently it's a stub with only one source that isn't the org's website - and can find NCORP sources, I have no problem if this is HEYed or re-written. SportingFlyer T·C 06:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In doing a WP:BEFORE search there are a good number of books with coverage of this organization.4meter4 (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can you confirm what books cover or mention the association. I ask because, in my own WP:BEFORE, I could find no books about (or even partially about) the org. The only book results I could find were in The Law of Companies (Courtney, 2017), Contract Law for Students (Forde, 2021) and Commercial Law (Forde, 2021). Each of which are legal text books which afford a few lines to the same legal case. McMahon v Irish Road Haulage Association. Which involved a precedential ruling that "where terms are implied into an organisation's constitution, they are also implied into a statutory contract". But these mentions do not add-up to SIGCOV for the organisation itself. Or allow for the article to be materially expanded. Certainly I couldn't materially expand the article based on these mentions. The only other results, from my own book search, were in directory-style works (like Ireland, a Directory; 2003). Are there any book sources which discuss the org in any depth? (Its history, foundation, operation, etc?) I certainly couldn't find any.... Guliolopez (talk) 10:04, 27 November 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} 00:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stations

İnkılap railway station

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

Although the Turkish article has a few cites I cannot see enough to show it notable Chidgk1 (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:10, 29 November 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

Transportation-related Redirects for Discussion

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