Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reading spark plugs for racing/3


 * 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Reading spark plugs for racing
Was kept before under How-to, however that is no longer in effect, having been made redundant by WP:NOT. Delete. -- SonicAD (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, here are links to the two previous deletion debates: 1, 2-- SonicAD (talk) 03:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep If you want to move this somewhere better (Is there an automotive wikibook?), that's fine; but frankly you should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking about deleting this much quality work by one or more people. Disk space is cheep, human effort isn't. Bryce 03:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm a racing fan, and I like this, but, well, it's in the rules, I'm just following them.-- SonicAD (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete as per SonicAD's nomination. Wikipedia is an attempt at an encyclopedia, not a dumping ground for all kinds of information - whether its "quality work" or not shouldn't come into this consideration. And incidentally, there's no guarantee that this is quality work Bwithh 03:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete, per nom. As mentioned by Sonic AD, the decision of the original AfD's was keep becuase (as quoted from Uncle G) "although some do not like how-tos in Wikipedia (which would have astonished Diderot), there is no policy against them". This however has changed in recent months, and now |How-to articles are considered a violation of the WP:NOT policy-- ☆ TBC ☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 03:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Fails WP policy of no tutorials or how-to's.  Direct authors to Wikihow, where how-to's are being developed.  (sorry, forgot to sign this before: Ande B 05:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC))
 * Delete per above. -- Shizane talkcontribs 06:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Kevin 11:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above Crazynas 12:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a how-to-guide, per nom. --Ter e nce Ong 14:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Move or Transwiki Not exactly in the right place, but it could be put in a talk page or userpage. It should at least be preserved. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flyne (talk • contribs).
 * Delete per nom; I can't imagine that there's anything in the article that is (a) sufficiently encyclopedic and (b) not already covered in other articles, such that merge and redirect isn't appropriate. Joe 23:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: This issue has been discussed twice before.  While the article is written as a 'how-to', the subject matter itself is not a "how-to".   While Wikipedia wouldn't have an article on "how to do brain surgery", "brain surgery" is a valid article.  The opening paragraphs are a valid description of the subject.   If people object to the rest of the article, that should be discussed on the talk page of the article.  SimonP's comment at the last AfD was the best: "just make sure it is descriptive rather than prescriptive".  I would agree to a "cleanup" tag on the article referencing these issues but not an outright deletion. Samw 00:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Sam makes a strong keep argument, but I wonder whether the treatment already accorded at Spark plug is sufficiently encyclopedic and appropriately descriptive (though it, to be sure, needs cleanup as well); I don't know that the section is sufficiently large/distinct to merit its own article. In any event, I think fairer analogies would be betwixt the Spark plug and Brain surgery articles and between this article and Brain surgery techniques, which, even if written consistent with Wikipedia is not a how-to guide", we'd still likely delete in view of its being overly specific (we'd merge, I think, any encyclopedic information to a broader article, such as Neurosurgery or even a section of Surgery, and I don't think anyone would object to merging here, although I supported delete in view of my conclusion that there was nothing to merge).  Joe 03:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The nomination for AfD is predicated on the article being a "how-to" and thus doesn't belong. Has the issue now shifted to the "notability" of the subject?  I'm not aware of any notability guidelines for technical subjects.  Any verifiable technical subject is fair game AFAIK.  See Voigt notation; that must be much more obscure than this topic.  I cite that simply because I contributed; I'm sure there are many technical subjects even more obscure.  If the issue is that it's a how-to, my assertion is that while it may be partially written as such, the subject matter is not.  Let's flag it for clean-up and rewrite it so that it is "descriptive" rather than "prescriptive".  Samw 03:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Even as the nomination is in view of the article's quality as a how-to, we may nevertheless support deletion on other grounds. When I use non-notable here, I mean the term to mean that the information is exorbitantly trivial (or, as I said above, overly specific; cf., esoteric, where your Voigt notation adduction would be apt) and thus unencyclopedic (even if formulated other than as a how-to).  Joe 19:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So on the issue of notability, I strongly object to technical subjects being held to a "notability" criteria. Wikipedia is not paper.  Until there is established consensus as to what is notable and what is not within each subject area, as many topics as possible should be covered. Top-hat shim has 13 Google hits.  What is the notability criteria for automotive technologies?  Samw 03:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment There's an outdated version on wikibooks. Should just update that one and delete this one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flyne (talk • contribs).


 * Strong Keep: If you want a clone of britanica why bother with wikipedia? Britanica (or encarta etc) doesnt have stuff like this, Wikipedia DOES. Seriously, Who needs wikipedia if all it has is the same inane "lowest common denominator" goop as all the commercial ones? You can be just like them or you can be special. To be just like them is to doom the experiment to failure and gives away the greatest point of strength wiki has, the ability to present RARE information. I think I need my own web page for this stuff.


 * As an asside to the above comment "there's no guarantee that this is quality work". True, just as there was no guarantee of the vericity of all the other crap I learned which proved NOT to be true (the GREAT BULK OF WHICH IS STILL OUT THERE)in gaining the knowledge and experience to write that article as it is now. Over 30 years of cutting edge racing research have allowed me to seperate the wheat from the chaff and give the verified work to others. The real test will be when someone tries it. I'm confidant!--=Motorhead 02:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply to =Motorhead: You may have missed some of the discussions on this article. This article appears to already exist in Wikibooks.  Another appropriate location would be Wikihow, which was specifically created for the purpose of gathering together instructional materials on one site, related to this one.  Your worries are misplaced, as is your apparent anger.  Deleting the material from Wikipedia does not remove it from the entire Wikiverse ;-) Ande B. 06:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, after updating the copy that (as Flyne points out) already exists on Wikibooks - there's no point in keeping the same content in two places, and - as a how-to - this really fits better on Wikibooks. If there's any general information on the practice of reading spark plugs that belongs in an encyclopedia, it should probably be merged to the Spark plug article. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 05:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * '''Keep per motorhead. Not a paper encyclopedia. :) Dlohcierekim 14:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Motorhead, this is great work. It has already been transwiki'd to http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Reading_spark_plugs_for_racing.  Fear not, your work is not going to dissapear!


 * 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.