Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of world's most expensive transport infrastructure


 * 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 and rename to "List of expensive transport infrastructure projects". &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 01:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

List of world's most expensive transport infrastructure

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

While theoretically a nice idea, this article is doomed to be original research. I have made a pretty good effort to find reliable sources to base this article on, but there do not seem to be any that I can find that adequately addresses this topic by making a comprehensive international listing of the most expensive transport infrastructure projects. Right now it is just an ad-hoc list of expensive transportation projects culled from many different sites. However, this is highly problematic, and more misleading than informative. First of all, no attempt is made to define what kinds of projects should qualify. This list compares a number of different, fundamentally different types of projects, ranging from the construction of entire systems over decades, to relatively minor upgrade projects. It isn't clear why some systems are included while others are not, and in the absence of reliable sources to discuss methodological choices like this I don't think wikipedia should be making these kinds of synthesis like conclusions. Secondly, no attempt is made to control for inflation; without such a control this list is simple trivia, and again is more misleading than enlightening. Thirdly, the rather random inclusion of some projects while not others creates a geographical bias and may give the impression of a complete list, while it is in fact leaving out the majority of projects which could be included. Without at least some sort of "control list" to base it on this is also a fundamental problem of making an ad-hoc list like this.

I do not think that these problems can be remedied given the RS available; I have made a good faith effort to find such sources but have been unsuccessful. As it stands I expect this article will sit for years misleading the public. I suggest a deletion, or at least that it be broken down by category of infrastructure (ie. bridges, airports, highways etc...) which may be easier to make a reliable list of. Peregrine981 (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - very good points made by nominator, but I think this list can be fixed rather than deleted. I don't think it is necessarily WP:SYNTH to have a superlative list based on a comparison of reliably-sourced information - comparing dollars to dollars is not original research. I agree that it would be better divided into lists by type of infrastructure, but I think the key for longer-term projects is following the sources to determine which qualify as singular projects versus combinations of separate projects. For example, the Interstate Highway System is commonly referred to in reliable sources as a singular venture and there is a reliable source for its singular cost, although individual improvements are considered separate (e.g. Big Dig). Other large maintenance projects are considered separate infrastructure projects (e.g. Eastern span replacement of the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge), and some projects are actually several smaller projects lumped together as one major project by reliable sources (e.g. Honshū–Shikoku Bridge Project). Probably the list should only include projects which are complete or substantially under construction; projects which are well-known but aren't approved can't have a reliable source for their cost and shouldn't be included (looking at you, Hurontario-Main LRT). Reliable sources should be available in the linked articles; it's a different problem if they're not. Ivanvector (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep only if the name is changed. Nobody on God's green earth is going to throw that into the search box. "List of transport infrastructures" would make the most sense (with "cost" being just one column heading on a sortable table). Pax 00:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that "most expensive" is okay given the stated criteria (projects with a cost over $1 billion). Otherwise it really is an indiscriminate list. Ivanvector (talk) 01:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep and change name instead of wikipedia trying to rank which is most expensive, it could be left to the reader interpret the data. The name could be natural, for example List of expensive transport infrastructure projects. The inclusion criteria could remain - projects with a cost over $1 billion (although a specific year could be decided on - to allow for inflation . Jonpatterns (talk) 09:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * comment: Something like this could be a suitable compromise; by leaving out "most expensive" it takes away the onus to be complete. It seems that a 1 billion threshold is considered a "mega project", see also List of megaprojects. Perhaps this should become List of transportation megaprojects? I still think that it is somewhat problematic that no reliable third party sources seem to have made such a list, but as long as we get rid of the superlative I think that is less of an issue. I also think that it should try harder to address the issue of inflation and geographical and temporal distribution, as well as leaving out planned and in-progress projects as suggested by User:Ivanvector. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep There's plenty of coverage out there about such large projects - see International Handbook on Mega-Projects, for example. We also have a more general list of megaprojects and it seems quite reasonable to have a sublist for transport projects such as Crossrail.  The main issue I'm seeing is that the costs should be normalised to adjust for inflation.  Such improvements, renaming, scoping, &c are best done by ordinary editing per our policy.  Deletion is not appropriate because it would be disruptive. Andrew D. (talk) 12:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: No one disputes that such projects have received coverage in general. The problem here is that they are being explicitly listed as the most expensive such projects without any real support in the RS for that categorisation. There are a number of specific problems which I listed above, to do with this list in particular, not megaprojects in general, which of course can be the subject of an article. As far as I know, no list like this exists in the RS, which as far as I understand the term means that we are doing the very definition of OR with the article as presently constituted and named. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete. The nominator has got this right. The premise of this is rail -v- road -v- airport -v- tunnel -v- bridge and their relative building expense (which may not be a true figure because the sources are different). This makes the article a construct in itself and one must wonder if it should also be listed at List of Wikipedia articles by the most time spent by editors. Considering this, I note a couple of editors have suggested taking out "most expensive" from the title, but retaining the figures. I can live with that. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, though renaming to List of costly infrastructure projects (i think costly works well) or another rename would help. Can't easily split by railway vs. roadway vs. bridges.  Note the Boston "big dig" project included a bridge and roadway and tunnels and maybe also railway.  But keep definitely, as this is a great list for readers who can look up projects they know about and compare them to others.  I was happy to find the one I looked for, up pretty far in the list.  I looked for Three Gorges Dam too but it's not-- do  ncr  am  23:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * comment: I think it's fairly clear that the consensus is to rename. I suppose that the discussion on the details of that should be taken to another venue? Peregrine981 (talk) 09:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that. My guess is that since there were some comments like "keep only if name changed" then the closer didn't see a clear "keep" consensus and chose to relist. If we go with "megaprojects" (which would be fine by me) then there's the problem that List of megaprojects already exists and has a transport section. I think that this list is large enough to be separate, with a link from the main list, in which case List of transport megaprojects makes sense (changing "transportation" to "transport" to follow the main list). Ivanvector (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete since this list is just an indiscriminate pieces of information. While well sourced, a simple list of expensive transit projects, as mentioned by the nominator, is a piece of original research. There's also no clear criteria to which the info can be sorted into, as everything from highways to subway systems. And it's a bit of a duplicate/merging of other lists that we have, as there is a List of roads and highways, List of metro systems, and List of bridges. Although none of them have any costs near the side, a simple note near the side could be placed near the name of bridge/subway/etc. if necessary. But having a standalone list of the costliest is original research, and, as the nominator pointed out, simply trivia.  Aerospeed  (Talk) 20:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.