Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rail cable

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. — Cirt (talk) 04:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rail cable

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

This article has been created by an account whose sole purpose seems to be to add external links to pages from Eland Cables. The article is a minimal stub with no real content. There really is not a class of "rail cables" as such. Certainly there are many different kinds of cable that are made to meet the specifications of the rail industry but the same can be said of many other industries - aeronautic, automotive, medical etc. The intersection between cable classes and railways is not demonstrated to be a notable subject for an article.

Delete as nom Spinning Spark 20:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 21:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 21:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They are much in the UK news at the moment as being a favourite target for theft, primarily because of the high price of copper. People disguise themselves as railway track workers, gain entrance to the railway line, cut a cable at both ends, roll it up and sell it for scrap. The cables are either signalling or power cables; either way, the trains are brought to a stop for hours. It's been going on for years in odd parts of the country; but recently a case near London hit the national press. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that theft of railway cable would make a notable and verifiable article. But do you believe that frequent theft of butter from market stalls would be grounds for creating a market butter article for instance? Spinning Spark 22:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being used in the rail industry is not a defining aspect of a cable. Of course, many of the cables mentioned in the article are suitable for an article, but this becomes an artificial article. As railwaying uses both electrical power and both analog and digital signaling system, I would believe nearly any type of cable would be found somewhere within railway operations. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this is an ad.Yotemordis (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Note: Yotemordis (talk · contribs) blocked as a sock puppet. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 04:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Improve I could expand the articles by detailing all the specific rail cables to give more scope which will allow to use more references. I welcome any help from the community. I chose the stub format as my understanding was that it was a sub type of article to quickly tackle small topics. But anything can be expanded if we collaborate.Eleanor1975 (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Eleanor1975Eleanor1975 (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant spam.--Pontificalibus (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No help was provided to improve. Eleanor1975 (talk) 09:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Eleanor1975Eleanor1975 (talk) 09:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Eleanor, I know that you're pretty new around here, so you won't know all the methods yet. Please see WP:DISCUSSAFD - rather than adding a new !vote for Delete, you should really have modified your original !vote. Also on that page it suggests that "If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination", and "If the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator". This to me suggests that just because the article has been nominated for deletion doesn't mean that you are prohibited from editing it - on the contrary, go ahead and improve it as much as you can: the better that it becomes in the next few days, the more likely it is to be kept. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Improved Created sections and added references on the cable theft issue. Eleanor1975 (talk) 09:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Eleanor1975Eleanor1975 (talk) 09:50, 17 June 2011 (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.