Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chrysler LA engine


 * 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. John254 18:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Chrysler LA engine

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article is very messed up, not at all at the encyclopedia standards & is very messy to read. As well, the article does not site any sources or references. Warrior4321talkContribs 22:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep — This AfD nomination makes little sense. Those few Wikipedia articles that approach perfection get nominated for Featured Article status. We don't delete the ones that fall short of the mark, we work coöperatively and steadily to improve them incrementally. Chrysler LA engine needs work — reliable sources would be a good start. However, it's not "messy" by any reasonable definition; its assertions and subtopics are arranged logically and coherently, its lengthy lists are neatly hidden behind hide-tabs pending consensus on whether the lists should be there or not, and it is currently under active development by more than one editor. There seems no valid reason to delete this article unless we also decide to delete Ford FE engine, Chrysler Slant-6 engine, Ford Windsor engine, and numerous other articles about vehicle engines that are in need of — and undergoing — active development. I would suggest the nominator adhere to his/her own advice regarding Wikifying rather than deleting articles. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - No kidding. This article has every reason to exist.  --SFoskett (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. The natural state of a Wikipedia article is unfinished. (Otherwise, what's the point?) This is similar to numerous other engine articles, and while it needs references, that is not of such urgency that deletion is the only recourse. --Dhartung | Talk 09:19, 20 February 2008 (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.