Talk:Redundant elevators

This page was proposed for deletion by Dodger67 (talk · contribs) on 23 January 2022.

Redundant elevators is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability

Engineering

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Transport

	Transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Deletion discussion

@User:Dodger67 Where is the link to the deletion discussion? I'm not seeing one. Thanks. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 12:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bohemian Baltimore a WP:PROD doesn't have a discussion. If you'd like to oppose the PROD you simply remove the template at the top of the article page. Then we can discuss the reason I PRODed it right here... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is this even a thing?

Any structure that has more than one elevator can be said to have "redundant elevators". It isn't a different type of elevator or used in a different way. This article is simply about an ordinary adjective + noun phrase. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roger (Dodger67), A "redundant elevator" is not different from any other elevator in design, but it's necessary to have them to ensure greater accessibility. In metro stations with one elevator, where the elevators frequently malfunction and break down, the stations are often functionally non-accessible much of the time. This is a common accessibility problem with the DC Metro, for example, and disabled people have apps on their phones alerting them when elevators malfunction and bus transfers will be needed between stations. Because of this, many metro systems throughout North America (and I assume elsewhere) have made strides to install extra elevators, create policies mandating them for future stations, etc. "Redundant elevators" could be anywhere that there are elevators, but I've generally seen the term used when discussing public transportation specifically. I think this is relevant information for Wikipedia, so people can know which transit systems are making these mandates, where improvements are being implemented, and perhaps if I can add more detail to the article, which stations have redundancy and which don't. Do you think that maybe the article needs clarification or perhaps a different name, to specify that this is about accessibility efforts within transit systems? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bohemian Baltimore I've done some digging, we do not currently have an article about the accessibility of subway systems. Even Accessibility#Transportation does not mention subways. So I propose that the two of us create Draft:Accessibility of subways. It would also be a suitable "container" for this info about redundany elevators and thus solve my concerns about this article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to deprod this myself but was beaten to it. Sources talk about "redundant elevators" in the context of disabled access. That makes the phrase more than the sum of parts since that meaning cannot be divined from the parts. If enough sources in a great enough depth (such as this one) cover the topic, then a standalone Wikipedia article is justified no matter how silly you think the concept is. That just comes down to your opinion and we go by notability instead. SpinningSpark 16:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]