Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conversation of pilots of KLM 4805 and Pan-Am 1736


 * 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. BJ Talk 02:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Conversation of pilots of KLM 4805 and Pan-Am 1736

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I proposed this for deletion on the 7th, with the following rationale: ''This is not an encyclopedia article. It's a transcript of a conversation. Not too sure where this belongs, but it's not on Wikipedia''. The prod was contested, so here we are. Reyk YO!  08:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 09:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete wow, this is as unencyclopedic as it gets. Arsenikk (talk)  10:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Irrelevant - Skysmith (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge or add reference to Tenerife Disaster item on accident itself. I don't see a reference in THAT article to the transcript, perhaps one should be added. It *is* an important part of the Tenerife Story, but doesn't merit its own article I agree. MadScot666 (talk) 11:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree, the transcript is an important part of the Tenerife Disaster story, but this is not an encyclopedia article and is unlikely to become one. I found an annotated version of the trancript online here, and added it as an external link in the main article under the title "The last eight minutes". Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  13:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. If the complete text of the transcript is of value, as it may well be at Tenerife Disaster, then perhaps something might be placed at Wikisource, which exists for stuff such as this? The added complication is that having the transcript on a wikipedia article inherently means that it can be edited, and thus loses all integrity as a reliable source (ignoring its being on wikipedia). So using this article as a source to document the incident defeats the purpose. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge or Delete per nom. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete from encyclopaedia -- It is conceivable this could be retained elsewhere (wikisource?), provided there are no copyright issues. Furthermore I am not sure that "Ternerife Disaster" should exist even as a redirect - possibly "Tenerife Aviation Disaster".  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Add a source that features the transcript as a source in the Tenerife Disaster article, if it isn't already there. This article itself is merely a transcript and a possible cut-and-paste from somewhere else. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for every single piece of information on the planet. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 14:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Maybe I have it all wrong, but you have to laugh when you see comments like 'irrelevant' about a transcript of the cockpit-tower communications of a major air disaster where the chief cause was attributed to mis-communication. I mean honeslty, h-l-l-o !! . As for WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I have to wonder if people ever look at what they are linking too. I mean, at a push I suppose you could put it to a tune, but it certainly isn't a list of song-lyrics. We must delete it because it could be edited and become unreliable? Well, that's the whole of en.wiki up for deletion then. It's not an article? Well it clearly could be with proper accompanying text, and for length reasons alone it merits a fork from the main article. I'm no expert on copyright, but the only even plausible delete opinion made here is potential copyright (i.e. is it copyrightable? - nobody produces cockpit voice for commercial gain, it has to be recorded in multiple places, any media reproducer is not the original copyright holder etc etc), but even so, that argument isn't even made for 6 whole votes!. Realy, honestly. MickMacNee (talk) 01:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply Hm, I'm hoping I can clarify a bit for you here. First off, WP:IINFO states merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Additionally, WP:NOTREPOSITORY states Mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents', letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, un-modified wording (emph. mine); this transcript is source material, only useful in its unmodified state. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 07:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is quite clearly not comparable in context or relevance to an article to a text dump of source code or text of a law. MickMacNee (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply True, it's not the same as a text dump of source code or of legal documents, but it does qualify as original historical documents that are only useful when presented with their original, un-modified wording. It's not the place of Wikipedia to store this sort of information. Maybe Wikisource, but not Wikipedia. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:32, 11 September 2008 (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.