Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dual gauge for Africa


 * 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 delete. Johnleemk | Talk 07:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Dual gauge for Africa
In some senses, it's a good article, but I suspect there's a lot of Original Research going on, which is contrary to policy -- RoySmith (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've put up a 'context' and an 'unsourced' tag; if that gets fixed, it looks like a pretty good article. Should be easy for the author to get sources for it. Lukas 22:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete with regret, barring introduction of something to address WP:V and WP:NOR problems. I dropped a note atUser_talk:Tabletop, since that user seems to be the major contributor. Sourcing would turn this from a delete to a keep (of an attractively composed article) in a jiffy, IMHO. (I tried some Google searches and found nothing relevant to this being an actual proposal) ++Lar: t/c 23:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge the verifiable non-original research stuff back into the dual gauge article, which would a leave a longish but not overly long section afaict. Delete the rest with regret. If Tabletop were to host this proposal on an external site it would make a very good external link from our article. (If I understand such things correctly, if the page was licensed under the GFDL and linked back to us then they could take the article as it stands(?).) Thryduulf 00:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, personal websites shouldn't be used as primary sources (see WP:NOR), so even that might not do, unless there were some independent corroboration that this is a proposal that someone or some organisation, that is notable, has made. I'm hoping that this material really DOES have a verifiable source because it's neat/interesting, but neatness does not count. (take that, Mrs Schwartz, and other third grade teachers everywhere). It has to be both interesting and important. This applies whether the material is merged in or kept separate, IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 01:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should make myself clearer. What I was proposing was that this be taken to an external website where it can be linked to as a "further reading" type external link, rather than using it as a source for an article. Thryduulf 10:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)