Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PB-244854

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. JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PB-244854[edit]

The article makes no assertion of notability. The article is full of apparently original research, which appears to be the sole purpose for its creation. Only small and select bits and snippets from the source document are used to support only the original research-based conclusions presented by the originator. The originator is a single-purpose account with a fairly clearly conflict of interest. --JJLatWiki (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - PB-244854 is referenced in Viability of Personal Rapid Transit In New Jersey published by Booz, Allen, Hamilton under contract for the New Jersey Legislature, 2007. It is a foundation document. --BillJamesMN (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - PB-244854 is the lessons learned from the 1973 Oil Embargo. We have ignored those lessons now we have an oil addiction. Senate Letter Sept 10, 1974 staged the creation of PB-244854. Senator Byrd signed that letter which is why Morgantown's PRT is in Morgantown. Deleting key documents makes hard-won lessons even harder to re-learn. --BillJamesMN (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Efforts in Sweden, Poland, England (and Morgantown) are all modeled after this blueprint. It is a seminal, foundation document for oil-independent transportation. The fact that it is 30 years old tells us that we haven't learned a lot. To ignore global warming and peak oil is a grave mistake. --Swensong (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I figured the report might be notable and replaced the page with a stub I created using information from every reliable source I could find. What I came up with is absolutely as worthy of deletion as the original (albeit perhaps not as unpleasant to read). This is simply not a notable report. --Hyperbole (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Automated_Guideway_Transit. This is no Report of 1800. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original research? Hoax? I can't even tell... Lady Galaxy 04:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely non notable. Snowfire51 (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, utterly unnotable iteration of a federal regulatory standard, now three decades old. --Dhartung | Talk 06:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I prodded the article five days ago to give it a chance, but the notability issue still hasn't been addressed. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 06:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic, fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2008 (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.