Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The trains of the Holocaust


 * 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 SPEEDY KEEP without prejudice to relisting The new version is utterly different from the old. If anyone still wants it deleted (and I think that's unlikely), then a fresh debate is needed as many of the comments here are talking about an entirely different article.-Docg 17:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The trains of the Holocaust

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No references. Possibly original research. Written in a non-encyclopedic tone. Contested prod. &mdash;dgies tc 00:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I am withdrawing my nomination as the article has been completely rewritten by Trident13. Any AfD closer may still weigh the comments of others but note that those prior to 11:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC) likely refer to the previous version. &mdash;dgies tc 16:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless extensively rewritten and sourced. Whilst it may well be fundamentally accurate, it's original research and fails WP:NPOV and WP:TONE amongst many other guidelines.  Eliminator JR  Talk  00:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Rhythmnation2004 00:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete- same reason as EliminatorJr. Fails WP:NPOV and WP:TONE, must be rewritten to become useful information. Also nothing links to the page and I dobut it will ever be searched.
 * Delete reads like nonsense, delete unless rewritten. WooyiTalk, Editor review 03:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * delete WP:OR--Sefringle 03:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Definitely original research and doesn't appear very neutral. --Nehrams2020 07:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The one link on the page is to a commercial website not linked with the article that I can see. It smacks of WP:OR aand a lack of WP:V —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JodyB (talk • contribs) 11:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete. Well, that was... not what I expected. It definitely looks like someone decided to publish an essay on Wikipedia (WP:NOT. (I went ahead and afd-warned the original editor who may or may not want to save and/or rehost his essay.) -- Seed 2.0 14:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable and breaks many WP guidelines. Nousernamesleft 15:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this article is a disastrous mess Booksworm Talk to me! 17:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as usual, essays like this are neither needed nor wanted. Moreschi Talk 21:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or "translate into English and remove all the OR"...well, I guess those are the same thing, so, ya, nuke it. Tom e rtalk  22:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above comments. Burntsauce 23:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Frag - yeah, appears to be an essay, not a encyclopedic article. Usually I would say weak keep if it could be saved, but I doubt it in this case. David Füchs( talk / frog blast the vent core! ) 23:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions.   IZAK 06:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions.   IZAK 06:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and WP:WIKIFY as it's facts appear ok. IZAK 06:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * keep and stubbify. Notable topic, inappropriate article. --Shirahadasha 07:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unverified, uncited, OR -Docg 08:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and WP:WIKIFY. This link seems to suggest this is an ongoing controversy. I'm happy to take on the task of re-writing something better. Rgds, --Trident13 16:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If it was only wikification this needed, I wouldn't have listed it here. This needs a total rewrite, plus sources.  Are you volunteering?  &mdash;dgies tc 17:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes - see my stub page. The Hungarian story is the most horrific so far, in the role the train played in the Holocaust. Rgds, --Trident13 21:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, impressive, OK, no objection to replacing with new version. &mdash;dgies tc 05:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, now replaced in its entirety. What are your thoughts? Rgds --Trident13 11:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, recommend relisting the AfD per Trident's additions to the article. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 13:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * strong keep of the current version, whgich is drastically different from the version originally nominated. it is now well sourced -- I have seen FA canddiates less well sourced -- and well written. Closer, please consider relaisting if significant nubers of those who expressed an opnion before the rewrite have not changed or reconfirmed their views after the rewrite. DES (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2007 (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.