Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spanish solution


 * 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 no consensus. Michig (talk) 08:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Spanish solution

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:V WP:N. After extensive searching, I can't find a single WP:RS which predates this article that uses the term Spanish solution. I've found a few blogs and other non-RS which use the term, but they are all newer than this article. As far as I can tell, this is an invented term, with no preexisting usage, and what sources do exist out there have just picked it up from us. I don't think there's any doubt that the concept actually exists in rail stations, but the name appears to be invented.

This was first discussed five years ago at Talk:Spanish solution. Sadly, the term now has extensive use in our own railroad articles. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

PS, searches for Barcelona solution don't yield any better results. Lots of blogs, mirrors, and other non-reliable sources, but nothing that predates our usage. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Almost immediately got a book result from 1979. It's obviously a notable concept so would be a keep even if the article title was an issue. SpinningSpark 18:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, your google-fu seems to be stronger than mine. What search did you run to find that?  -- RoySmith (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The search term was "Spanish solution" trains in gbooks. SpinningSpark 07:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. I've done some more searching.  I'm now convinced that the term did indeed exist prior to wikipedia (so, WP:V is no longer a valid argument), but I'm still not convinced this meets WP:N.  There's not much out there.  Most uses seem to be in primary sources (i.e. conference papers).  Many of the uses of the term "Spanish solution" aren't even applicable to trains.  For example, Therefore, the Spanish solution, autonomy for Gibraltar's government within Spain..., or the only viable Spanish solution to the problem of Indian control was the interpreter-scout .  Even in the context of trains, it doesn't always refer to the idea of opening the doors on both sides of the train: The Spanish solution of introducing the European standard on the stretch of high-speed track between Madrid and Seville, means that the peninsula will in future have two different networks .  And, even in sources which are in fact talking about the subject of this article, the term is used partially in quotes, In view of the anticipated low loads, the "Spanish" solution is not necessary , indicating the author doesn't consider this standard or accepted usage.  On the other hand, we've got an entire article about it, and use the linked term in many articles.  This fails WP:N and WP:UNDUE as a neologism.  -- RoySmith (talk) 13:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge/Delete: It's a minor concept of railway platform arrangement, nothing more. The limited sources available only prove it exists; they don't prove any of the claims about its origin or the details of its usage. The list of examples is completely uncited and includes a number of other arrangements that vaguely resemble this. Additionally, there's no proof that those stations were actually intended to use the Spanish solution, or whether they simply happen to have this platform arrangement. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Two pages that verify the Barcelona origin of the term are but I can't say for certain that the information didn't come from Wikipedia.  Another 1970s book that mentions the term  in addition to the one linked above . SpinningSpark 22:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. If the concept does originate in the 1970s (as appears to the case), it may be that there are good sources which don't have an electronic footprint. The 1970s-1980s are particularly bad in that regard for rail transport. Transportation Research Record might be a good place to start. Per Pi.1415926535 the list in the article is a real problem, and if you remove it you're left with a thinly-sourced dictionary definition. Mackensen (talk) 13:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The origin is the 1930s in Barcelona, not the 1970s. This article verifies the Munich S-Bahn, at least, has the "Spanish solution". Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 18:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

An online-search for the German term "spanische lösung" gave some results, with the majority being passing mentions newer than 2005. (Münchner Merkur article about the planned "Hauptbahnhof Bahnhofplatz station" (passing mention of the concept), Stuttgart Journal article about regional budget (passing mention of the concept), CDU Region Stuttgart proposal from 19/10/2015 to refit Stuttgart S-Bahn trunk line stations with spanish solution platforms (non-RS)) A gbooks search in German for "spanische lösung bahnsteige" seemed more useful, with some hits to books from pre-2005 in German, so the term "Spanische Lösung" was used before the creation of the dewiki & enwiki articles. (VDI-Lexikon Bauingenieurwesen, p. 63, Städtische Untergrund-Verkehrsbauten, Band 2: 1970, p. 48, Handbuch Eisenbahninfrastruktur, p. 37, S-Bahn München: Alba, 1997, p. 59) Also, state-owned rail operator Deutsche Bahn and DB Netz AG use the term in their documents and on their websites regarding the construction of the second munich s-bahn trunk line. I know that's neither indepth coverage nor a reliable third-party source, but it shows that the term is used in somewhat official/rail-industry context. (DB Netz AG website about the planned "München Hauptbahnhof Bahnhofplatz station" mentions the concept, Deutsche Bahn AG PDF about the planned "Marienhof station" (mention of the concept), DB Netz AG website about the planned "Marienhof station" (mention of the concept), 2. S-Bahn-Stammstrecke München Erleuterungsbereicht Planfeststellungsabschnitt 3neu 18.02.2010) I also found two PDFs from the Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Wirtschaft, Verkehr und Technologie (Bavarian ministry of economic affairs and transport), and one from the Eisenbahn-Bundesamt (Federal Railway Authority), mentioning the German "Spanische Lösung". (Bahnausbau München: Machbarkeitsstudie Vertiefende Untersuchung 2. S-Bahn-Stammstrecke Dezember 2002, Standardisierte Bewertung des Vorhabens 2. Stammstrecke - Startkonzept (on behalf of Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Wirtschaft, Energie und Technologie), Federal Railway Authority (insert super-lenghty and complex german title here)) I'd say the spanish-solution concept could be a suitable article topic, if sources allow for an article that isn't just a dictionary definition. The biggest problem with the article in its current form is a lack of sources and the super long list of example stations (almost all without references/sources). Regarding keep/merge/delete, im undecided for now. (Maybe WP:TNT could be a solution?) Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2018 (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.
 * Comment: I found some stuff, but most of it isn't reliable, third-party, published. The German article on this topic (Spanische Lösung) was created on February 18, 2005. According to the dewiki article, the spanish-solution concept is also referred to as "Zwillingsbahnsteig" (lit. "twin platform"), cited in the dewiki article with a PDF doc from Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus (November 2005).
 * Keep. Per the various rebuttals to deletion, the sources found prior to this article, and the others that have already appear afterward. Rosario (talk) 05:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to Railway platform. Verifiable but of dubious notability, essentially an aspect of railway platform design and should be covered there. If one omits the crufty list of stations that use this, the remainder would fit nicely into an existing article.  Sandstein   19:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge per Sandstein. Content is verifiable and notable, just not enough to warrant its own article.— Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 23:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge: After thinking about it for some time, i'd say merging to Railway platform would be appropriate (without the unsourced example stations list). Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment about merging. It seems pretty clear this is heading to a merge.  I have no fundamental problem with that, but the long list of examples is pure cruft and should be left behind.  Of the material that seems appropriate to merge, the problem is that it's all unsourced.  I'm marked up the current article to highlight statements which need supporting references before they can be merged.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I added two book sources (this one and this one), both can be read online on gbooks, although in German. The lead now briefly summarizes the Spanish solution concept with these sources. Just for the sake of it, i also added one newspaper article stating/verifying the use of Spanish solution at München Karlsplatz, so now at least one station has a reliable, third-party source. All other cn-tagged statements remain unsourced; if sources verifying these can't be found, there won't be that much content to merge then, i guess. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - clearly the initial entire rationale for advocating the deletion of this page couldn't have been more wrong! The term existed before, as a WP:BEFORE would have (and has) revealed.  The nom should have been withdrawn at that point and it is quite, quite improper to now piggyback on the majorly flawed OP to raise extraneous "arguments" for anything other than a straight keep.  The railway industry term "Spanish solution" is quite important in the industry, for those familiar with the industry, i.e., the subject matter experts, even if outsiders can spend five years wondering whether it is a term of art or not.   Now, once one understands this is a highly relevant and usable industry term, what could be more natural than citing examples of its current and past use?  The article stands on its own and is quite useful as is; any small weaknesses should be addressed by interested editors, and remember: AFD is not cleanup.  XavierItzm (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * All that has been established by sources is that the term exists, and has for a while. Not its actual history, not any of the claims about its advantages. So once you take out everything that's unproven, what you're left with is a two-sentence lede plus a completely useless list of stations that happen to have that platform layout. A list that would be equally well served by a category, and completely fails to prove whether stations were constructed for one-way passenger traffic or not. This AfD is being conducted because the article is not possible to clean up to any reasonable standard. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken that sources do not discuss the advantages. The Transit Toronto source I linked above discusses possible advantages for Toronto "Theoretically, this could cut dwell times by half" and "...the new arrangement with platforms on either side of the single track was an excellent opportunity to test the Spanish Solution and show how it could speed up loading and unloading times at Bloor-Yonge."
 * You are also mistaken that sources do not give the history. Its origins in 1930s Barcelona is well established in multiple sources.  I also linked a source which verifies that São Paulo, Paris, Boston, China, Japan, and Germany have used this solution.  The same source also points out that declining passenger numbers can cause the system to be abandoned citing New York as an example. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 23:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Transit Toronto is not a WP:RS. From https://transit.toronto.on.ca/spare/0011.shtml: Transit Toronto is a web site wherein fans of the Toronto Transit Commission have gathered information on the system, and a bit later on, the authors describe themselves as, a group of people known as railfans.  -- RoySmith (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2018 (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, Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2018 (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. Relisting comment: No clear consensus yet.
 * Keep The sources provided are enough to pass WP:GNG and this AfD was based on a faulty premise. o idea why this hasn't been closed yet. Smartyllama (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Delete premise seems to be flawed that numerous sources have been found. I would also oppose merging since it would seem undue on a general article about railway platforms. Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2018 (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.