Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Passenger train human waste disposal

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Passenger train human waste disposal was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep the article.

Probable joke. I can't find anything on Google for CONAPOR or the Grange Act and the Bush quote doesn't seem too likely.

Dr. Joe Tanner's Defense:

I had believed in the democratic process that fueled Wikipedia until now. I am appalled that the administrators responsible for verifying the validity of recently submitted articles turn to Google for truth. I am one of the only specialists in Public Transportation Administration in the western hemisphere.

Comment: this reply was posted by User:63.85.132.17. In the future, please sign your names with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. --Ardonik.talk()* 04:22, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
Comment: You'll be surprised how well the google method works when verfying the notability of a subject. If there are no google hits, 99% of the times, the terms just doesn't exist. Obviously we encourage experts on a certain subject to contribute to the encyclopedia, but they are subject to the same review as everybody else.Wyllium 04:25, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)
  • Merge into US public transport article. This doesn't deserve it's own article. Wyllium 04:31, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)
    • Actually, delete. I can think of several more countries that have this "system", but somehow the "epert" forgot to mention them. Highly suspect, delete.
  • Keep but leave only a sub-stub. Passenger train human waste disposal is a real subject. I'd like to see a series of similar articles created for arctic science camps, ships, submarines, airplanes, spaceships and space stations ... -- Toytoy 08:14, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, arguably candidate for speedy. Patent falsities include "Joe Tanner"'s claim to be "one of the only specialists in Public Transportation Administration in the western hemisphere;" I'm sure the profession can do better than lying about... er, you know... on encyclopedia wikis. "CONAPOR" can't be found and makes no sense - virtually all passenger railway service in North America is publicly owned or contracted. If anybody's really interested, there's a toilet article with a short section at present on "Toilets in public transport," and a redline to Chemical toilet, and I'm sure some sort of credible article on the portable toilet could be made and survive. This article presently under vfd is a believable source for none of them. Samaritan 08:28, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I wish someone in the know could write something about Sloan Valve Company's Waterfree Urinals. There's only an external link in Urinal at this moment. This urinal only saves water, it does not recycle water (not useful on a spaceship). -- Toytoy 09:51, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • If it can be verified then merge as per Wyllium; if not, then delete for sure. I have a feeling it'll be the second one. ClockworkTroll 08:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: The external link just leads to a Christian college in Pennsylvania. The Bush quote makes this a hoax. If the author were a professor, he would be about to provide actual citation instantly. He cannot, and therefore his claims of being a professor are suspect. We do not keep unless disproven. We delete unless proven. Geogre 15:24, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • keep. After removing the bullshit, the stub says true facts. Needs cleanup. Look at the Janitor article to see how a seemingly lowly subject can becovered. Mikkalai 20:27, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: But "Passenger train human waste disposal" is an inappropriate name. We don't have human waste disposal, nothing links there, and if we had anything there it would just be a reasonable subset of and redirect to toilet. So should Passenger train human waste disposal redirect there (or to Passenger car) - if we thought anybody in the next ten thousand years might look directly for an article at PTHWD. If it's so granular there isn't even a plausible, common sense name ("train toilet?")... Samaritan 21:04, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Delete. Put any useful content into train or whatnot. Until such time as the topic bursts out from such a parent page, do not have a substub/stub. zoney ♣ talk 23:31, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC) I have cleaned up and expanded the page. There is actually potential to expand it further (I've not explained how the chemical retention tanks work for example, or where the waste goes when removed at stations). Could those who have voted delete please review? zoney ♣ talk 22:12, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) I suggest a new title, e.g. Passenger train toilet facilities (see page talk).
    • Reviewed per zoney's request, but I'll still vote to delete as it's a bad title for a concept with little if any case for its own independent entry. Merge what we know now - great stuff, ClockworkTroll! - into Passenger car and Toilet. Samaritan 23:08, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is barely an article and is at an awful title. It'd be better to just start over elsewhere. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:39, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete irremediably badly named article. Fire Star 05:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I still don't like the title much, but the most recent version of the article is better. Abstain at this point. Fire Star 23:09, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Well, the cleanup notice does make it sort of funny. Bart133 17:02, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • keep. It seems that this article should stay--I don't think I have to remind anyone here that before this article appeared there was no information on this subject on Wikipedia.org. I think this controvesial discussion shows that perhaps this issue is worth looking at with more scrutiny.
  • Keep. Generally accurate information, and, like it or not, a valid topic. Needs some copyediting to get rid of the US & Euro-centric POV, but that is easily taken care of. Tannin 14:17, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Abstain, pending more information - I haven't been able to confirm or disconfirm the veracity of this article, so I actually wrote to Amtrak on the subject. If I get a response, it will be forthcoming within 24 hours. ClockworkTroll 21:19, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) 
Dear Matthew <Surname Snipped>,

Thank you for contacting us.

The matter is flushed in to a holding tank. We do not release the matter
on to the tracks. Releasing it on to the tracks would be considered polluting,
which we do not do.

We hope this information will be helpful.

Sincerely,
Brooke
Amtrak Customer Service
      • I suggest you to re-read the most recent version of the article and reconsider your vote. Also, you may want to upgrade the content by the new information you've got. Mikkalai 22:51, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I just finished reading it the moment you posted, and you're right: it's night and day from teh article it was not long ago. I'm going to change my vote (again) to keep.
While Amtrak may be fastidious in its handling of sanitation, on some other lines elsewhere in the world the waste is indeed still dropped right onto the tracks. It is a strange experience to have the tracks flashing by directly underneath one's bottom! Fire Star 23:04, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep the current version. I have no idea about how it's today but I believe that this was how toilets on trians originally worked - and probably still works in less developed countries. Jeltz 23:19, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hey - it's still the case on most trains in Ireland. Our stations are literally "crappy". zoney ♣ talk 23:36, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
When I think of it I believe that this is also the case with some old trains in Sweden. Jeltz 13:12, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep this version. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 22:53, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mark Richards 00:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep/fact check -- we have Category:Toilets and Waste Management and Pit toilet and Latrine and this and the below article dovetail pretty well with the constellation. It's interesting to me that the 'developed world' takes their two most truly valuable resources, clean water, and shit, and mixes them together, making them useless without separating them again.Pedant 04:19, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

Transport toilets

[edit]
  • Thinking way too much about this, I've come to a new position. With what we know now, passenger train toilets would face entirely or essentially the same constraints, use the same technology, etc. as toilets on an intercity-class passenger or a VIP tour bus, a recreational vehicle including certain trailers or vandwellings, etc., etc., and very similar to toilets on a passenger ship or airplane. (And, hey, aerial lifts, airships, helicopters, etc.) What we need to make of this is a common article: I suggest transport toilets, with a redirect, if it found favour, transportation toilets. Or vice-versa. (Mobile toilets is a possibility but perhaps too close to neologism...) So keep and move to a more inclusive, less painfully granular, but extremely close subject definition. Samaritan 05:46, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I respectfully disagree. This article discusses (or should) how toilets are arranged in train carriages. Also the "dropping crap onto the tracks" element is not generally (or ever?) the case with other modes of transport. I suggest this remains train-specific. At some point someone can presumably create an article on how the retention tanks (indeed used on buses, planes, etc.) work, and that can be linked to from here. zoney ♣ talk 10:26, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Some boats drop it in the sea, but I hope that all aeroplanes and busses use tanks to store the crap. Jeltz 13:13, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • "Blue ice" is the word for frozen human waste dropped (accidentally) from aeroplanes (example). Tip: don't save it in your freezer. Kappa 07:00, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, now that I've counted the votes I see that there is no possbility of a consensus to delete here: it's almost 50/50, where a delete verdict requires something approaching 80/20 or 90/10. Accordingly, I will remove the deletion notice. Tannin 14:22, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Do NOT remove the VfD header while the discussion period is still live. Discussions far more controversial than this have eventually reached resolution. Please allow the Deletion process to proceed properly all the way to the end. (no vote yet) Rossami (talk) 07:09, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Rossami, either one of two things is hapening here. Either the VFD policy has been changed recently (in which case I am unaware of it), or else you fail to understand the word "consensus". The voting on this article is, on current count, split exactly 50/50. There is, in other words, no consensus to delete, and no reasonable chance of a consensus given that achieving a reasonable majority vote for deletion would require doubling the current number of votes, and then adding that number again, and all of those votes being delete votes. If there has been a recent change in policy, please say so, and I'll withdraw. Tannin 12:12, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • VfD notices are not removed until the article progresses up the VfD list. In my opinion, listings should be able to be removed where lack of consensus is apparant, but this is not the current policy. And apologies for the accidental rollback on this page of Tannin's comments, I had intended to rollback on the actual article (reinstating VfD notice). zoney ♣ talk 13:24, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Good afternoon, Tannin. The policy has not changed nor have I misunderstood how we use the word concensus. What you may have overlooked is our policy and very long-standing community standard that VfD discussions are not to be terminated early. Given the current standing of the debate, it may appear highly unlikely that consensus will emerge but it is premature to say that it is impossible. This has most often occurred when someone contributes new evidence to the debate and others go back and change their votes. (Yes, that happens frequently.) I'd also caution you not to remove the VfD header from the article early because it complicates the archiving which happens after the discussion period runs out. Keep or delete, this discussion gets preserved. That janitorial task is thankless and confusing. Removing the header early introduces a chance for error because it disrupts the work patterns of the volunteers who do the archiving. The VfD header costs nothing to keep for a few more days. Please let the process work. Rossami (talk) 18:57, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So, you are saying the policy has changed, Zoney? Where is this policy change recorded? What discussions led to it? I remain entirely unconvinced by these vague assertions that don't point to any evidence. However, in the light of Rossami's comments about the technical difficulties of the janitorial task, I'll refrain from reverting. I have spent too many hours myself dealing with the tedious and thankless task of maintaining VFD to wish to make it any harder for the people who are doing it now.

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Passenger_train_human_waste_disposal&oldid=1265668517"