Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strand Beach Funicular

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strand Beach Funicular

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

This isn't actually a funicular railway; according to both references, it's more like an outdoor elevator, and nowhere outside the article is it referred to as a railway. The only coverage of it I could find comes from a couple newspaper articles about its opening and trivial mentions in items about the beach, so it doesn't pass the general notability guideline. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's a cog railway. Elevators use cables, and the motor is separate from the cab. This thing in Strand Beach has the motor on the car, and uses cogs, not cables, so it's not an elevator. It's not a funicular either though. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a source for that? Every source I've seen describes it either as an outdoor elevator or a funicular (though never a funicular railway). TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 06:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Links are provided to a city website with ample information and a newspaper story.Cullen328 (talk) 06:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep. The system openened less than a year ago, so quite naturally sources are limited to press reports and the owners' site. This itself is not a valid reason to delete. Terminology and technical details are not AFD subjects at all. Cogs or cables, it runs on rails, so it is a railway. East of Borschov 07:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think the press coverage, while certainly not extensive, is enough to pass WP:GNG. The usual practice does seem to be that we keep articles about this kind of constructed public transit. I would certainly like to see the article expanded a bit: it's actually a rather interesting subject.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - As the others have indicated, it does seem to pass WP:GNG, if not overwhelmingly so. It's also a unique system, even as a funicular that's more like an elevator. How many elevators move diagonally, are totally outdoors and along the side of a hill? --Oakshade (talk) 02:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whatever are the best technical terms for it, this is an unusual people-mover. The only funicular type systems in California that i can think of is the defunct old one in downtown Los Angeles, whose name escapes me. This is comparable to the cable cars of San Francisco! It is rare also for being new; funicular=old in my view. (Addendum: i meant Angels Flight.) It needs to be developed, yes. Highly inappropriate AFD for an obviously unusual, notable transportation system, IMHO. --doncram (talk) 01:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a rail transportation system, and therefore notable enough to sustain an article. Mjroots (talk) 05:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2010 (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.