Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of steepest gradients on adhesion railways


 * 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 keep. Missvain (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

List of steepest gradients on adhesion railways

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There's no source for the entire list, nothing to say that whatever lines listed here are in fact the steepest gradients. Therefore it fails WP:OR as it’s original research and not verifiable. It could be renamed List of adhesion railways with steep sections or something but that would fail WP:LISTN. --Pontificalibus 13:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 13:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The list is not, despite the above claims, unsourced, nor does it claim to be a complete list of the steepest rather it is explicitly "some of the steepest gradients on adhesion railways". Although having said that the source for the first entry (Calçada de São Francisco, Lisbon Tramways, Portugal) does claim "The world's steepest adhesion railway grade is a 13.8% grade found on the tram network of LIsbon, [sic] Portugal.". The list does need improvement in presentation and not all entries are sourced but these are issues that do not require deletion. The introduction to the list summarises why the list is notable, and see also Steep grade railway which this could/would be a section of if the list wouldn't overwhelm that article. Thryduulf (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't claim it was unsourced - sourcing individual entries is not sufficient for lists of biggest/smallest/tallest/steepest etc - the entire list needs to be sourced to verify the items presented are in fact the biggest/smallest/tallest/steepest. You're correct that it does claim in the article to list only "some” of the steepest gradients, but that's contrary to the article's title. As I said in my nomination if it is only to be a partial list of some steep railway sections then it's name should be changed to reflect that, but I doubt such a list topic would satisfy WP:N.Pontificalibus 14:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the entries are sourced; but the list isn't. It's all well and good having the #1 entry sourced at being 13.8%, but how do we know that there isn't one steeper? We don't. Best wishes – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 14:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The source explicitly claims it is the steepest, so unless the source is wrong (evidence please), that's that sorted. If your issue with with the title of the list deletion is not required and WP:RM is thataway. Thryduulf (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That was probably a bad example on my part. But still the point stands, for example: #2 is stated as 11.6%, what if there is one between #1 and #2? Best wishes – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 15:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Having a source for the steepest doesn't mean we have a source to say the second on the list is the second steepest, or that the third on the list is the third steepest. To create a list of "steepest" per the title we need all the items listed to have a source stating their position in the list (and/or a source for part or all of the ordered list). I addressed a possible re-titling in my nomination too - if this isn't to be a list of "the steepest..." then it would merely be a "list of some examples of steep..." and fail notability and probably WP:NOT criteria.Pontificalibus 15:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 20:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza<b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d  c̄ ) 20:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, but perhaps rename the article to "List of notably steep gradients on adhesion railways" or "exceptionally steep" or something like that, to remove the ranking element. NemesisAT (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, generally interesting and useful list; suitable sourcing. Details and title name are not particularly relevant to an AfD discussion. I am very unclear how the nom. should consider an article with this age with several independent contributors could have considered this suitable for the PROD prior to this AfD nomination. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * to be fair Pontificalibus did prod this (with essentially the same rationale as their nomination here) but I deprodded it (for essentially the same reasons as I give here for it being kept). Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for spotting and dePRODing this to avoid the wastage of people's effort that brought this article to its current albeit imperfect state. I'd note in passing  good faith moved to the current name back some 11 years ago so possible they may have any comment on a title change.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark 11:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "interesting and useful" isn't a sufficient reason to keep, but is it even useful if it just lists some random railways that someone thinks are steep.<strong style="color:#555555">Pontificalibus 15:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Pray goad all ye like. Bit sad the Lickey isn't on the list, and its a pity the length of the gradient isn't listed also, but there we have it. A steep enough gradient can be a operating limiting factor for a railway; George Stephenson frowned at anything over 1 in 300 from memory; Lock would go to 1 in 75 from memory.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's why the steepness of adhesion railways is best tackled in Adhesion railway. We're unable to list the steepest adhesion railways because the sources don't exist - most sources give a single example of a steep section on a railway, much better to use these examples in the Adhesion railway article, rather than try and create our own ordered list of railways and/or sections of railway ordered using original research.<strong style="color:#555555">Pontificalibus 05:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep There are sources, it just needs more of them. This is clearly something that gets mentioned, it a notable thing.   D r e a m Focus  14:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you point to a single reliable source that lists the steepest gradients on adhesion railways? If not, how can you claim this a notable thing? <strong style="color:#555555">Pontificalibus 15:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you not notice the 16 references in the article already? A few brief moments of using the reliable source search at the top of this AFD and I find https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42384814   D r e a m Focus  15:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * None of the sources in the article discuss the topic of "steepest gradients on adhesion railways" or list the steepest such railways. The source you give above is about a single funicular railway, which is a different kind of railway not relevant to this article.<strong style="color:#555555">Pontificalibus 15:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I ain't a civils but it doesn't have to be in the article, but oclc 67899506 looks good for starters.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Google news shows https://jalopnik.com/cruise-through-this-holiday-weekend-on-the-front-of-a-t-1846612571 which reads: “The Bernina railway sets a few records, including being the highest railway alpine crossing in Europe (2253m), the highest adhesion railway of the continent, the open air railway with the greatest height difference (1824m) and furthermore one of the steepest adhesion railways (conventional railway without cogs) worldwide, with gradients of up to 7 percent.” Being one of the steepest adhesion railways is apparently noteworthy and it list the gradients. Sources that cover trains of this type cover this information.  Most of the trains on the list have their own Wikipedia article, this is a logical sorting of things by a notable feature they are known for.   D r e a m Focus  18:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Again a source that gives an example of a section on a railway, claiming it's one of the steepest (although it doesn't make our top 10), but giving no exact figures so we don't have enough information on where to insert it in our list - would this go before or after "Red Marble Grade"? Is this really 1 in 14.2 or is it 1 in 14? Sources are too vague and don't cover this aspect in enough detail for us to create a proper ordered list ourselves, which is probably why no reliable sources present their own ordered list, - it's not really achievable with an acceptable degree of accuracy. We'd be much better off therefore to discuss the best examples in a prose article rather than trying and failing to create an accurate list. --<strong style="color:#555555">Pontificalibus 05:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @@: Well if it was a merge you were after that was pretty vexacious to PROD it. We remain happily within context of LISTN guideline anyway. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep These are world-famous railway locations, many of which are recognised upon reading the list. These are locations people go to take photographs - of trains, of the steep grades, of the former right-of-way locations. The per-cent notation in the listing is critically important and of significant interest to railfans and tramway buffs. Maybe rename the article to "List of notably steep gradients on adhesion railways", or like this. This is a significant listing. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep We don't need the list to be sourced in its entirety to a single source, which is what those arguing for deletion seem to be implying. What we need is sources that establish that the topic is notable (which does not seem to be a serious area of contention in this case), and sources that give the numerical values for each entry. Ordering the list by numerical value is to my eye self-evidently covered by WP:Routine calculations. The possibility that the list is incomplete is not a reason to delete the list—we have Incomplete list for that exact situation—but it is a reason not to rank the list (are we sure number 33 is really number 33 and not number 34?), which indeed we don't with this one. These arguments apply to all lists of superlatives by numerical values. For instance: if a new film is released that would qualify to be included on the list of longest films, we don't need to wait for some external source to provide an updated version of the list that includes the new film, we can simply add it in the proper spot by noting that e.g. 8 hours is longer than 7 hours but shorter than 9 hours. TompaDompa (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.