Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crossbuck safety


 * 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 merge into crossbuck. - ulayiti (talk)  11:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Crossbuck safety
content doesn't seem to be encyclopedic in nature – delete – Klparrot 11:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep mildly interesting Tom Harrison Talk 12:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge useful parts to Level crossing. Kusma (討論) 13:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep sounds okay to me, if not merge it to somewhere under a section. --Terence Ong Talk 14:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is NOT the place for original research. &mdash;gorgan_almighty 17:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Scoo 19:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non encyclopedic. Wyoskier 21:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Among the best Crossbuck examinations I've seen to date. Could use more references. -- JJay 00:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Despite the assertions here, I see no OR on the page. There is no original spin as the examples are all taken from the International Railway Journal- hence they can all be sourced. -- JJay 03:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The lead says: "This article is examining Crossbuck Safety, comparing different crossbucks used around the world, to see which might be better and which might be worse." This sounds like a research project to me. JoaoRicardotalk 20:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete: Looking at the page it's fairly obvious that the creator is trying to provoke an original research project, which Wikipedia does not allow. Deathawk 01:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into crossbuck. (Some of the same info is in that article anyway.) Crypticfirefly 03:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. An attempt at original research. JoaoRicardotalk 20:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * keep but re-write to remove what sounds like original research. the comparisons are nice. interesting article. Kingturtle 09:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: As far as original research projects go this one is actually quite good. Does anyone know of another wiki out there where original research projects are allowed? One of the Wikicities perhaps? This article isn't suitable for Wikipedia, but it seems a shame to just delete it. &mdash;gorgan_almighty 09:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge the non-OR material into Crossbuck -- RoySmith (talk) 19:45, 13 January 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.