Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fastest cars by acceleration


 * 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 00:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

List of fastest cars by acceleration

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. roguegeek (talk·cont) 22:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep -- It's not indiscriminate. It clearly specifies narrow inclusion criteria (0-60 in less than 4 seconds; production cars only) according to a commonly used metric in the automotive world. As such it is a list that one might very plausibly expect to find in an encyclopedia. Jfire (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom's excellent reasoning.-Proactive primrose (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC) — Proactive primrose (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * What reasoning? The nominator has provided no reasoning at all.  Xe has simply written a declaration about what Wikipedia is not, with no explanation at to how it applies to this particular article.  "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is not an indiscriminate criterion for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep A rather good article actually, being a useful list, compiled from reliable and sourced data. QA list of all cars by acceleration would be indiscriminate--this limited list is not. Any reasonable limination having some reference to iportance --and the timing is obviously one-- that produces an informative subset, is not indiscriminate. DGG (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I actually think this is a good example of how to use a list - highly specific and industry-accepted criteria for inclusion, a useful way of categorizing data, not awash in a sea of red links, etc. Kate (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Jfire. Edward321 (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep how is this indiscriminate? 76.66.195.159 (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I am not a big fan of lists, but this one could serve as a model for other lists. The inclusion criteria are comprehensive and clear.  And the entries are meticulously referenced. -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 11 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.