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. Randykitty (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of heavy equipment equivalents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This comparison list is meaningless to anyone not deeply ensconced in the construction trades and thus already familiar with what this jumble of letters and numbers means. To the general reader, this list has no value whatsoever. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 12:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I'm not convinced about the encyclopedic value of this list. Moswento ^talky 12:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Lists of equipment models for individual manufacturers are accepted as uncontroversial facts, including for some of the same manufacturers mentioned in this stub, with examples at List of Caterpillar Inc. machines; List of John Deere tractors; Komatsu America Models. An article which correlates those various models across manufacturers would be useful new content. Unfortunately, the current article is just cut-and-paste from an external Web page (archived here). Besides the possibility of (technical) bias as coming from a single source, the lists are incomplete, such as including Caterpillar D7 and D8 but not D9 or D11. A good article would explain the similarities rather than just listing model numbers, not just “A ≈ B”, but more like “A and B both use one-ton-class high-temperature turboencabulators”. Obviously this is not yet such an article, but there is potential. If someone is willing to adopt the article, I would suggest userfy it. 50.181.30.121 (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure I would agree that the List of Caterpillar Inc. machines is "accepted as uncontroversial fact": I believe that article to be as pointless as the current article in that a mere list of model numbers, with nothing to differentiate or define them, serves no purpose whatsoever. If we do choose to userfy this article, it may have to be to the userspace of a different editor than the original author, as that author appears to be somewhat inactive. I did enjoy your use of the term turboencabulator in your example, though. As an old engineer, I'm glad to see this bit of kerfuffle is still around. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.