Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logging truck


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Logging truck

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Essentially a dictionary entry - More appropriate for wiktionary.  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  20:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please remember that this is only a stub and therefor a starter article. All it needs is fleshing out, so it is just as appropriate as, say, tow truck. Peter Horn User talk 23:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This is not in any way a dictionary entry. It is not about a word; there is no etymology, grammar, pronunciation, spelling, or usage examples.  The nomination is perhaps confused by the shortness of this stub.  As WP:DICDEF explains, "Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent.". Warden (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - This is a stub article, like so many others on Wikipedia. Stubs are not bad. They are the seeds from which featured articles grow. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No I am not confusing this. The text of the article was essentially "A logging truck is a truck used for logging", when we have an article on trucks and on logging. That meets the criteria for a dictionary entry. We also have WP:DEADLINE which means we are not in any rush; one sentence articles without sources can be created in user space, fleshed out, and posted when there is some sort of notable content. Just my opinion. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  02:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The existence of other related articles is an other stuff argument which does not seem to have anything to do with dictionary nature. Please cite and quote the criteria to which you refer.  Warden (talk) 07:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't... use.. other stuff... as my rationale?.. Clearly no point in addressing your comments, because you just do as you please and make what you want out of a situation. We know you vote to keep everything, no point in convincing you otherwise. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  14:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The existence of the articles truck and logging is an other stuff argument because you're saying that the existence of those articles is a reason to delete this one.  It isn't and, in any case, it has no bearing on your original dictionary argument.  The deletion argument is riddled with holes and so now you're resorting to personal attacks.  That's false too as I routinely !vote to delete articles which have serious issues.  This isn't one of them.  Warden (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added some revealing images which show what the "beast" is. Peter Horn User talk 02:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For now it is User:Peter Horn/logging truck. Any one can feel free to flesh it out so it can become a proper article. Peter Horn User talk 02:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Once an article has been tagged for AFD, such a radical move should not be made until the discussion is closed. Your work is much appreciated but you do not own the article and so it's best to leave it where all editors can find it. The discussion will probably be closed as a snow keep soon and then you can continue without any fear of deletion.Warden (talk) 08:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're wrong. An article creator can move his creation that nobody else has made edits to back to his userspace without you sticking your nose in Colonel. As much as you like to pretend you run AfD, you don't. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  14:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The move into userspace has been reverted and the page has been move-locked for the duration of the discussion to prevent repetition. Warden (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes because every two hours you moved it to a new title and I had to move it back over and over, so it was locked to prevent further edit warring. The history was merged because you caused two separate articles to be created. This is in NO way a validation of your incorrect belief that a user cannot move their own content back into userspace even during an AfD. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  19:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article and this one provide a nice history and other information. There's at least one study of truck configurations, an Alberta government guide, specific regulations, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those external links, very and most useful! Peter Horn User talk 21:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep -- I note that the artiel has been userified. This provides hisotry and is considerably more than a dictionary entry: Keep and restore to article space.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I shall restore it to article space as soon as I'll have time. Peter Horn User talk 21:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Peter Horn/logging truck has been turned into a redirect to an existing Logging truck article which was a move from "Timber lorry"! The one who did this thereby lost all the images that I had found. "brilliant"! Peter Horn User talk 22:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This whole discussion is now moot as we are no longer discussing my stub, but a complete already existing article. Peter Horn User talk 23:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You can find it here, which was my mistake when I tried to undo Colonel Wardens disregard for your userspace but accidentally capitalized the L in the process. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  23:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article subject is definitely encyclopedically notable and can find adequate sources. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 02:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is definitely an important topic and surely gets enough coverage for WP:N. Nyttend (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2011 (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.