Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightweight rail

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lightweight rail

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

Proded because "Unreferenced article written in an essay form and non-neutral way to promote original research"; prod removed without dealing with issues Edgepedia (talk) 08:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The entire lightweight rail article reads like an essay, and is built up as a non-neutral arguments for why this concept is so fantastic and bases itself on presenting original research. We have an article about light railway, which covers the topic about railways which are lighter than normal, and we have an article about monorail. The article is constantly mixing terms; it tries to explain a science-fiction version of suspended monorails (real ones which are covered in the monorail article), but at the same time has selected incidents and examples from alleged short-comings from conventional railways which are used to support the authors point of view. Other claims are just not true: there are numerous elevated conventional railways; comparing the person-to-weight ratio of high-speed intercity trains (which for instance contains a dining car and needs more power output per tonne than, for instance a metro) to low-speed, high capacity people movers is mixing apples and bananas. No-where does it introduce any references from reliable sources, instead relying on the author's fanboy page on the issue. And don't get me going on the article being written in first person plural. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, essay, POV, unreferenced. Arsenikk and Edgepedia have about covered it all. Lord Vetinari 10:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not because it's written like an essay, that can be fixed through editing and is not a proper reason for deletion. It is, however, as others have said, not needed given other articles that cover the subject in a more encyclopedic way. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 13:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. oknazevad (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR. Kilmer-san (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to criticism

The article is now linked to some extra sources, and is now to a greater extent referring to existing rail systems and independent projects, so it should be clear this topic is not just a pie-in-the-sky.

The remaining theoretical discussion is based on a simple calculation: comparing passenger weight (for which the train should be designed) with the traditional freight weight capability. This ratio is about 1:15, and such a design mismatch for a main specification must of cause be pointed out. The consequences of ignoring this important factor are naturally described. There is no original research involved here; just logical thinking, which is allowed.

Regarding lack of neutrality: Which opposing position should be respected here? The position of those who want to disregard weight mismatch issues?

There are no commercial interests, patent claims or protected designs behind this article.

I tried to submit the above response when I removed the delete tag, but by some technical error the submission failed. It consequently seemed I had removed the deletion tag without changing the article. Sorry about this misunderstanding. OlavN (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you'd like to add a "keep" !vote, per WP:DISCUSSAFD. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OlavN. The standard for something to have an article on Wikipedia is Notability. The details can be found at WP:N, but can be summerized simply as significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The page Reliable sources goes into some depth about the types of sources that are considered reliable.

Regarding the sources in the article:

//http:on-nor.net appears to be a self-published source, by Olav Naess. Is this your work?
//http://www.swedetrack.com self-published by Johnston Consulting.
//http://www.gtsfoundation.org/kjellgdahlstrom/attachment/here a brochure by the GTS Foundation

A concept of lightweight rail is discussed in the first source, but I'm not seeing the term 'lightweight rail' in the 2nd and 3rd articles. Am I missing something?

Also you mention the ratio of passenger to vehicle being 1:15, then you state that "such a design mismatch for a main specification must of cause be pointed out". Has this design mismatch been mentioned in any reliable source? Edgepedia (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The didactical term Lightweight Rail could have been replaced by Beamway (or Suspended Monorail). Beamway is used by the Swedish sources I mention, and implies less obligations to write a lot about old rail systems; Suspended Monorail is an old term with obvious notability. (I could easily have included more sources for conventional descriptions of this.)

When I call it Lightweight rail, it is to replace geek/antigeek prejudices with rational environment thinking. I don't know if the important ratio 1:15 has been used previously, but it is the easily calculated ratio between the weight to be transported in a 24 m long wagon (72 passengers: 7 tons) and the too large capability of traditional rail (>105 tons cargo). Avoiding this 1:15 design mismatch is a prerequisite for building a beamway/monorail, and thus achieving a 99 % reduction in ground razing and barrier formation.

My site on-nor.net can be described as my personal wiki. Wiki in the sense that I keep expanding the articles, and the content can be freely used by anyone. OlavN (talk) 08:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we have an article about suspension railways. Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which could accept the suspended or "Beamway" part of the present article, but for now neither mentions the topic nor links here.

Incidentally a personal Web page open for all to read and copy, and frequently updated and expanded by its owner, may be a good thing, but it isn't a wiki. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.