Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ongoing List of Accidents


 * 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 of the debate was DELETE. Mo0 [ talk ] 03:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing List of Accidents
Per WP:ISNOT: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The definition of what constitutes an accident is so elastic as to encompass certainly millions and quite likely billions of events every single day. Notable accidents will already have articles; this is a job for CategoryMan! Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete alarmingly all-encompassing listcruft. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I stubbed my toe this morning, can I get listed here too? Atrian 15:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete It is just copying off of List of Disasters just with a few more accidents included. MAZO 15:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete we are not an almanac either.--MONGO 16:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete ... per nomination. WP:NOT. &mdash;ERcheck @ 16:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Izehar 18:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Scoo 19:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep no wait, Stronger Keep (my vote counts more right?) thanks for the idea MAZO. Using your reasoning, List of disasters needs deletion as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.177.97 (talk • contribs)
 * No, using his reasoning means that we have two almost identical lists on the same topic, and one should be deleted. Not meaning to have a go at your contributions, but this list is also impossible to lock down to a definition that would give it a seperate presece to the aforementioned list of disasters, without spiralling our of control. Saberwyn - The Zoids  Expansion Project 23:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this list with undefined content. An unexpected event that "results in damage" could include grazing my knee when playing tennis. Sliggy 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete serious listcruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Stifle 02:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I wholeheartedly support the deletion of this, it isn't properly defined. However, you should look up the definition of indiscriminate, because even though it needs a more narrow scope, this list is well orginized and thought out.  Perhaps a little research is in order?  Regardless this is an un-necessary listKWinYO 03:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry this was one of my friends lame attempt to create a link page that made sense, there may be a few different people that used my IP, delete with my blessing.KWinYO 22:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Ridiculous list, would easily be terabytes long if it was complete. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 07:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, the aforementioned List of disasters, has been nominated for deletion. Saberwyn - The Zoids  Expansion Project 12:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment While I agree that this list should be deleted, the term cruft as in listcruft is mis-interpreted. This article is NOT trivia of interest only to hardcore fans of a specific film, television series, book, game, pop singer, web forum, etc. A more appropriate argument is needed, such as the fact the scope of this list is too broad and by its very definition, all encompassing.KWinYO 02:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You are confusing fancruft with listcruft. For my personal view on listcruft see User:JzG/AfD - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] RfA! 19:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

'''Because the events regarding the Articles for deletion/Ongoing List of Accidents and Articles for deletion/List of disasters deletion debates are seriously looking to be intertwined. I will be depositing this serious chunk of text in both deletion debates.

I have struck all my previous comments and opinions from both debates, and have attempted to reconsider the two nominations (List of disasters - referred to as Disasters, and Ongoing List of Accidents - referred to as Accidents) and my reasons for deletion, in as unbiased a way as possible. Having attempted to do so, I have come to the following conclusions:
 * 1) Ongoing List of Accidents is an almost complete duplicate of List of disasters, and as such, warrants either a merger or deletion per the Wikipedia Deletion Policy.
 * 2) *However, while the two articles have very similar content, the definitions for inclusion are different. The Disasters article gives its definition (and inclusion criteria) as "a natural or man-made event that negatively affects life, property, livelihood or industry, often resulting in permanent changes to human societies, ecosystems and environment." Therfore, in my personal opinion, you need a lot of bang to get your disaster-rated buck.
 * 3) *The Accidents article gives it's definition (and inclusion criteria) as "is a mishap that happens unexpectedly, that results in damage or injury, up to and including death." I believe the point made by User:Atrian in the Accidents debate applies here - "I stubbed my toe this morning, can I get listed here too?". While defining an event as a disaster is 'structured' by the scope necessary to be considered by the media and public opinion as a disaster, any "undesirable or unfortunate happening" (the definition of accident I pulled from my hardcopy dictionary) could technically be included on this list; billions of entries per calender day.

However, looking at detail at the two lists, I would like to offer the following recommendations.
 * 1) The list of aviation disasters/accidents doesn't belong in either article. These should be split off into a List of aviation accidents, where the criteria for inclusion is set at a certain amount of fatalities, per the introduction for the sublist in the Disasters
 * 2) *As a subset of this suggestion, the lists of "accidents/disasters involving foo-vehicle" should also be split out into "Lists of foo-vehicle accidents", again, with a set fatality criteria, or at least some kind of inclusion criteria.
 * 3) Mining accidents/disasters, now thats a section in serious need of overhaul. Mining is a dangerous industry, and while every fatality may not be a 'disaster', there would be too many events to comprehensively list in an 'accidents' list/article. A criteria for remaining within the Disasters article would have to be developed and enforced - my personal suggestion would be to set a casualty limit, but also include those that caused significant rethinks in the mining industry.
 * 4) Fire accidents/disasters appears to be better served by the already-existing List of historic fires. Some merging to this article from these two articles would be appropriate.

Everything else in the List of disasters article is suitable (in my personal opinion), and as such should be kept.

However, if my suggested changes go ahead or don't, it appears to me that the Accidents article is always going to be the poor little brother to the Disasters article. Points to the creator for his/her effort, and if there is consensus towards my suggestions, I believe the user could best assist Wikipedia by helping to implement those. Unfortunately, the Accidents article should still be deleted, as there is no way (in my personal opinion) to produce a meaningful list/article under the current article name and definition of inclusion, without it spiralling out of control.

Here's hoping this makes sense, and that people read the whole thing. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids  Expansion Project 12:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * discussion resumes here


 * Responding at Disasters, since I think that is the place with the contentthat needs adressing. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] RfA! 13:06, 10 January 2006 (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.