Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California-Nevada Interstate Maglev

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 of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 02:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] California-Nevada Interstate Maglev

non-notable internet pipe dream, no third party sources other than self-produced press releases 71.212.87.103 02:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Listing orphaned AfD by 71.212.87.103. No vote. Mithent 02:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• delete crystal ballism Bucketsofg 02:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Out-of-date crystal ball. Last update on the project website is two years old. If this was even being talked about and studied, there'd be something, wouldn't there? Fan1967 03:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Not really since it is in the planning phase. I expect to see public hearing on the project in 2008 or 2009. The government does not move quickly on projects like this. Vegaswikian 19:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:Crystal ball --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete But there's hope! T K E 04:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Icarus 07:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Terence Ong 10:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Look here people, this project is for real. Lensovet 11:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • A Livejournal is never a valid source. —Cuiviénen, Monday, 3 April 2006 @ 12:29 (UTC)
    • Jesus, it's a livejournal page that QUOTES A NEWS ARTICLE and has numerous useful LINKS. You have got to be kidding when you leave a response like that, how about actually clicking on the link rather than dismissing it right away. Thank you very much. Lensovet 01:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball or a soapbox. —Cuiviénen, Monday, 3 April 2006 @ 12:29 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 15:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless more is being done to futher this than some guy sitting around saying "gosh, I sure wish there were a maglev across the California-Nevada line!" ♥ «Charles A. L.» 16:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Searching the Interstate shows some confirmable sources. Multiple .gov sites confirm that money has been given by congress for research on this project. The project also got mention in an LA Times article. If cleaned-up it could be a decent article. SorryGuy 16:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Question Did you find any news sources since 2004? In a brief search everything I found was at least that old. Fan1967 17:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • See or for late 2005 sources. Vegaswikian 19:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per SorryGuy. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, might as well be the Tokyo-Montana Express. — Apr. 3, '06 [20:53] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• Weak delete I can see SorryGuy's point, but Fan1967 makes a well rounded response. Weak delete per nom Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 23:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Very strong keep Despite the weaknesses of the the stub in its present state, this subject is highly noteworthy. This is one of the most likely maglev train projects in the world, and is being researched seriously, particularly by the German consortium behind the Transrapid, who hope to build it as a demonstrator line in the hope of attracting future business; it would be the first long-distance application of Transrapid technology (the existing Shanghai airpirt line only takes 8 minutes). At the same time, it has a relatively high chance of being built, due to the fact that the air corridor between LA and LV is near-saturated. This is more than a pipe dream, there has been plenty of engineering planning and legal groundwork already. ProhibitOnions 12:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  Comment - I've added the above info to the article. FreplySpang (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Very Strong Keep per ProhibitOnions. --Shultz IV 16:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Fan1967 --Sam67fr 22:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  Request Checkuser - Possible sockpuppetry on the part of Sam67fr. They both have "67" in their names, and you can find more evidence by looking at their contributions, dates accounts created, etc... --Shultz IV 02:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Wow I've never been accused of having (or being) a sockpuppet before. Funny, I hadn't even noticed this user before. Looks like he and I both posted in 3 other AfDs. Fan1967 13:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Hello Shultz IV, it's nice to meet you too... Is it a sort of test, or do you always welcome new users like that?--Sam67fr 22:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This, at least the Nevada leg, is the only maglev project in the US that has funding. Given that it is the cheapest of the proposals to build per mile, the only interstate proposal, and the one with the most support from people and government it has a chance to become reality. How can anyone claim that only 3rd party sources are available when over $45 million for the planning phase was included in a bill signed by Bush? This maglev has not been ruled out as the major people mover to the new Las Vegas airport. Vegaswikian 19:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Still reads like a lot of crystal-ballism: "This is one of the most likely maglev train projects in the world", "it has a relatively high chance of being built..." Maybe if it could stick more to established facts: this is the proposal, here's what's happened. Fan1967 20:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If I'd known FreplySpang was going to add my comments above to the article, I might have phrased them a little differently. However, I stand by everything I said, and it looks like this has led to further improvements to the article; I hope this has made the case for keeping it conclusive. (I don't know why there's a fact tag on the "it would be the first long-distance line" assertion; there's presently only one such line in the world and it runs from an airport to a city center; this would be hundreds of kilometers long.) ProhibitOnions 22:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Another editor has cleaned up the article some more. The quality of a stub is not a reason for deletion. A poorly written article on an encylopedic article should be kept and cleaned up, not deleted because of its quality. The article also has the correct tags and categories for future projects. Vegaswikian 21:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The project is real, even if it hasn't broken any ground yet. (See here and here for announcements from Congressman of getting funding for the project.) —LrdChaos 20:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and added a reference for the federal funding figure, and removed some of the text from the speculative second paragraph (the "this is the most likely to be built" one). —LrdChaos 20:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok, 6 more Keeps to go to tie it. I think your additions made the article look significantly better. Now can you rally other users to vote "Keep" too? I'd appreciate it. --Shultz IV 21:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There has been a major overhaul to the article since the AFD. C-NIM has improved considerably. Feel free to view the full scope of the improvements from since the AFD. --Shultz IV 00:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep: After 46 million US$, it counts as a real maglev project (even if it ultimately ends up as a failed one). But the article should focus more on the process that's really happening rather than speculation about the future. Peter Grey 01:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - notable project. Article should focus on the facts not the speculation U$er
• Keep and expand It's a real project, more needs to be added about the history of the project. Slambo (Speak) 10:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete seems crystal ball to me. Bring it back when it is more than pipe dreaming. Eusebeus 12:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's in terrible shape now, but the article needs cleanup, not killing off. --CComMack 14:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This proposed Maglev line was reported on BusinessWeek. If something is reported from a major news source, it's generally notable. --Shultz IV 16:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand Money has been spent or allocated in the US budget. Article should be expanded for sections on topical politics and economics. --Wikimuku 00:38, 8 April 2006 (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.