Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths by aircraft misadventure

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 06:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who died in aviation accidents and incidents

)

Unsourced list article which appears to be a violation of WP:LIST as an indiscriminate, POV, collection of information. I am also nominating the following related page because it is a similar POV, indiscriminate list article with a similar deficiency in stated citations:

)

B.Wind (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The level of diction in the title ("air craft misadventure") suggests that this is some sort of joke page. The fact that these people died by aircraft death shows little relevance to the people themselves. Letsdrinktea (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't recommend anything involving levity in the phrase "death by... misadventure." "Death by misadventure" was the official coroner's verdict for former Rolling Stones member Brian Jones after he drowned in his swimming pool. B.Wind (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try not to giggle when I look at List of deaths by swimming pool misadventure then. Mandsford (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The aircraft misadventure article as a redundant and not-needed list, but keep the List of people who died in aviation accidents and incidents. I just discovered that article last week and have been updating it to get it up to standards. Tavix (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
List of people who died in aviation accidents and incidents, particularly since it is being brought up to code by Tavix. I don't see anything worth merging from the "aviation misadventure" article, which is redundant and has a silly title to boot. I'm not sure that everyone will realize that the nominator has added the aviation accidents list in as part of the nomination. At first glance, this looks like nothing more than a nomination of a clumsily worded article with the bizarre phrase "aircraft misadventure". I am fixing the title to make that clear. Mandsford (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge/redirect
WP:AIRCRASH. The list complements several others noted in Template:Lists of aviation accidents and incidents. As for the misadventure page, it is not a "joke page", if you actually bother to read anything more than the title you see that it serves some purpose as an attempt to list by event rather than occupation. The information is certainly good for a merge. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge/redirect as per Blood Red Sandman. MilborneOne (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hold up for a sec, I disagree with a merge because how are you going to combine both articles? They are the same thing almost, but sorted by two different things. If the two articles are merged, you'll have each person who died in an avaition accident listed twice in one article and it will get really messy. Take it from me as I'm trying to improve the article, and merging them is NOT the way to go about it. Tavix (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merging only applies to nonduplicated information. It would be required to methodically sift through each entry and see what, if anything, was not already there. I would advise redirecting at the AfD close (assuming we go for merge) and then looking at the old revision of the page in its history do the hard work over time. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I want to make the article nice, but trying to get me to shift through the other article for what I missed is overkill. Eventually, when I have the tables imputted nicely, I'm going to go through each person and figure out the specific cause of death, including type of aircraft (which is entirely what the misadventure article is about). However, a merge wouldn't make sense as I'm going to get that information from each person's article, not the misadventure one. So eventually, I am hoping that the "people who died in avaition..." article will satisfy both article's needs, but merging is not going to get that done. Just please delete that article so I don't have to do that extra work. Tavix (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said you had to do it. The nature of the wiki is that a) you do only the work you volunteer to b) you don't own the article. I would be pretty impressed if you just cleaned up what you've already got. I might pick through myself, although I have a busy week ahead. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but still, even for someone else, that is a pretty arduous task. I already have a good idea of what I want the article to look like, so you can save your time if you want. Tavix (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with Tavix working to make these articles acceptable, there is no reason to delete them right now. Lists take a bit longer to bring up to standards than regular articles due to the amount of formatting and citing that is required (trust me). I'd say keep to give Tavix enough time to get it in good shape, then deal with organization issues on the relevant talk page (such as deleting the misadventure page once content is merged). Clearly, this subject is notable enough for improvement. AfD is not the place for such articles. SMSpivey (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing the amount of time it takes for these lists. However, I am only working on the "List of people who died in aviation incidents" article, not both of them. Tavix (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, whoops. Either way, the one you are working on should be kept, in my opinion. At the very least, it should be userfied and the delete should be without prejudice of re-make. Really, though, it should be kept. SMSpivey (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Per WP:NOT WP is not a list ......... YOu get the idea

— Kosh_{Naluboutes, Nalubotes}^{Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris} 14:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, can you show me the policy that says "Wikipedia is not a list". If that was a policy, then the hundreds of thousands of lists can be deleted, which isn't the case. Second, which of them do you want deleted, because there are two of them up for deletion... Tavix (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep one merged article on this self-evidently (per
Phil Bridger (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2009 (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.