Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vehicles with Solid Front Axles


 * 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 03:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Vehicles with Solid Front Axles

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

This list seems to me to be hugely wide ranging, including carts, trailers, cars, trucks, buses, etc.

The list is potentially so wide ranging as to be unmaintainable. This is not a "list vs category" thing. It just seems to me that this will be a piece of indiscriminate information, of little use. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: I am sure that it is perfectly well intentioned but I can't see this as a useful or encyclopaedic list. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete It would be better to have an article on Solid front axle, then a list would not be needed. Northwestgnome (talk) 04:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't Delete It should be clarified though. Solid front (drive) axles as opposed to Independent Front Suspension (IFS).  Buses, cars, light trucks, and trailers do not usually have Solid front drive axles, they have dead axles or IFS instead. 4x4 enthusiasts appreciate front axles, wiki should have a list.  I can't find a list anywhere on the Internet.  It should be here.  There should also be an article on Solid Front Axles.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masonjeffers (talk • contribs)
 * Comment That you cannot find a list anywhere else does not make it valid. I cannot find a list anywhere of red haired left handed dwarves living in Clapham, but that does not mean one should be created in Wikipedia, however interesting the topic may be.  In addition, you created this article.  If you think, now, that it ought to be more specific, now is a great time to make it so.  Fiddle Faddle (talk)


 * Keep I think it is useful Jmbranum (talk) 06:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please read WP:USEFUL Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm looking to buy a used truck, and a solid front axle is a requirement.  It is useful.  If I needed a vehicle driven by a portal axle wiki has a list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masonjeffers (talk • contribs)
 * Comment: Well, no. WP does not have a list.  It has an informative article which contains a very short list of relevant manufacturers amongst the other information in the article.  Even so, the existence of another article is not relevant during a discussion on deletion or retention.  WP does not accept precedents.  However the example is clear.  This article as a list is not viable here.  But an article defining the solid axle may well have a true value. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as a pointless and unneeded list, about as useful as List of cars with engines --Numyht (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 *  Don't Delete  It is much more useful than a list of "cars with engines", that would be ridiculous.   Almost all cars have engines, very few vehicles have solid front axles.  Argument invalid.  (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masonjeffers (talk • contribs)
 * Please don't vote twice, MasonJeffers, thank you. Also read WP:USEFUL per your second to last comment. Thank you. --Numyht (talk) 22:08, 27 December 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.